Trauma Surgeon Evaluates LeMas - Graphic

[The Reaper]

“The study of wound ballistics is based on a significant amount of science and a tremendous amount of art.” - Sydney Vail, M.D., F.A.C.S. The human body has yet to be replicated in a defined way that guarantees duplication of injuries for any specific bullet design. Depth of penetration, temporary cavity, degree of fragmentation and other definable bullet characteristics including reproducible wounding has not yet been 100% correlated to any simulated media. The human body is far too complex to be able to generate a ballistic model that will consistently reveal the wounding ability of any type of bullet. I have cared for patients in and out of the operating room that have been shot with 7.62 x 39, 30-06, 5.56, shotguns, and pistol calibers from .22 to .45 ACP. I have retrieved Hydrashoks®, Gold Dots®, Talons®, Golden Sabers®, Cor-bon® to ball ammo and continue to be impressed with the uncertainty of reliable expansion, injury and ballistic profiles. I can tell you from a practical standpoint that anything determined to be reliable in ballistic gelatin has the potential to be unreliable in the human body, i.e., intended tissue destruction, bullet expansion/function. There are too many factors that go into wound ballistics in living tissue that CAN NOT BE REPLICATED IN ANY KNOWN SIMULANT MEDIUM. The “Miami Shootout” on April 11, 1986 gave way to the current FBI ballistic gelatin 12-18 inch testing protocols which still dictate and limit today the accepted standard for the design, testing, and utilization for all current law enforcement and military bullet designs. Fackler, in 1987 wrote a paper “What’s Wrong With the Wound Ballistics Literature, and Why. In it he states: “The wound produced by a particular penetrating projectile is characterized by the amount and location of tissue crush and stretch. In our laboratory, we measure the amount and location of crush (permanent cavity) and stretch (temporary cavity) on the basis of shots fired into gelatin tissue simulant. Since we have calibrated this stimulant to reproduce the projectile characteristics equivalent to those observed in living animal tissue, measurements from these shots can be used to predict approximate animal tissue disruption.” It is true that a tissue simulation that allows for evaluation of similar types of bullets offers great value. The FBI ballistic gelatin protocol is such an evaluation tool. But if a specific type of bullet construction could not be accurately tested in ballistic gelatin for performance in living tissue should we dismiss validated performance in living tissue because a particular testing simulant did not accurately predict that performance in living tissue? In today’s scientific world, we should instead develop new ballistic test methods which accurately predict living tissue performance or accept performance in living tissue itself as a valid test medium for bullet performance. I recently attended a live fire demonstration of the Le Mas Ltd. Law Enforcement / Military armor piercing ammunition utilizing both bare and armored live tissue impact mediums. I attended voluntarily, with no contractual, financial or other agreements between myself and Le Mas Ltd. I paid all of my expenses (plane ticket, hotel, car, etc) and have received no funding or honorarium through any sources to attend this demonstration. With respect to Le Mas BMT AP law enforcement bullets, I had the opportunity to both witness and conduct living (immediately post mortem) tissue animal necropsies. Of immediate interest with respect to the Le Mas AP ammo were the dramatic tissue destructions that did not represent a wounding pattern that I have seen with any other bullet type. Fully anesthetized hog comparative thoracic cavity and then rear appendage impacts were conducted with both “conventional duty ammunition” and the Le Mas AP law enforcement/military ammunition. The study was a matched cohort, following published guidelines of live animal use, i.e., appropriate anesthetics and animal care from a research point of view. Two board certified veterinarians were on-site ensuring the appropriate treatment of these animals. The wounds were remarkable in that both the Le Mas rifle and handgun rounds caused significantly more injury than ‘expected’, as I have seen in my practice. As an example, both the expectation for known/predictable permanent and temporary cavities with a 9mm or .45acp bullet performance depending on solid or hollow organ hits was not appreciated with the Le Mas ammunition but was with conventional JHP ammunition. The Le Mas round wounds were devastating in that it appeared that a high powered fragmenting rifle round were used when in fact it was a handgun round used to cause the injury. Large temporary cavity injuries were noted similar to wounds demonstrated with high powered rifle rounds that were not accurately predicted from conducted impacts into 10% calibrated ballistic gelatin tissue simulant. None of the 9mm, .45, or 5.56 Le Mas armor piercing bullet impacts over penetrated thoracic cavity or rear appendages of the animals while conventional duty ammunition did over penetrate the animals. The Le Mas 5.56 AP bullet thoracic cavity tissue dissection additionally showed the heart of the hog, hard to the touch in areas that appeared not directly hit by the bullet fragments. There was obvious evidence of heart muscle hemorrhagic contusion (a severe bruise) which was not demonstrated from comparative point of impact current military 5.56 rifle ammunition designs. The Le Mas thoracic cavity handgun bullet impacts showed both small and large lung bullae (surface bubbles) that are usually only seen with a blast injury or high velocity rifle bullet fragmentations. The armor piercing, Limited Penetration 5.56 rounds performed as designed in both armor and tissue. They penetrated the 3/8th inch HAA armor yet still had expected effects in non armored live target tissues (Figures 1-9). It was surprising to me to see the wounding effects the rounds maintained after passing through armor plating. The effects were similar same for handgun or rifle rounds; this keeps our military with comparable lethality if the transition to the sidearm is necessary. The overall safety of no pass through during CQB operations should keep our troops safer during these challenging missions. PLEASE REFER TO REFERENCED PICTURES LISTED AS “FIGURE #” Figures 1 & 2. LeMas SRAP 5.56. Significant tissue injury: heart, lungs, chest wall. No over penetration. Figure 3. LeMas SRAP 5.56. Multiple wound channels, same animal. Figure 4. Same animal showing significant heart injury with extensive hemorrhagic contusion and missing tissue. Figure 5. M-262 5.56 77 grain OTM ammunition. Definable permanent cavity with minimal injury away from the bullet’s track. No heart injury with wound channel just behind the heart. (+) over penetration with pass through of bullet.

[The Reaper]

Figure 6 (Below). M-855 5.56 ammunition. Significant injury to heart, minimal injury to lungs. (+) over penetration of chest cavity with complete pass through of bullet. Figures 7 & 8. LeMas APLP 9mm from handgun. Significant injury to heart and lungs; characteristic of high velocity rifle round. No over penetration. Figure 9. LeMas 9mm handgun. Same animal showing high degree of chest organ injury. A great misconception is that ballistic gelatin relates bullet performance in the human body such that all gelatin results correlate about 100% with performance of any bullet in the body. Yet in fact only tissue media can correlate to tissue, i.e., animal or human bullet impacts, so that a valid ballistic ‘profile’ can be established. The medical literature is replete with articles using live tissue or cadavers for ballistic profiling. The theory that 10% ballistic gelatin is highly correlated to muscle density has been shown but I haven’t yet seen a person with muscle hanging out without some amount of skin and subcutaneous tissue and fat on top of it. Different muscles also have different densities and thickness of fascias (muscle coverings) as well as having tendons running inside of or along side of muscles and having a skeletal structural support; gelatin has none of these. The human body is heterogeneous; ballistic gelatin is homogeneous, completely the same through and through. The Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies at the Pennsylvania State University Applied Research Laboratory commented on the “difficulty extrapolating the data for tissue simulants to use for living human beings” in their report: Ballistic Gelatin, February 2004. Commenting on Fackler’s gelatin vs. animal research, “original data is limited, and he [Fackler] sometimes references ‘unpublished data’ to support his argument.” Gary K. Roberts, DDS, LCDR, USNR has commented on Le Mas Ltd./RBCD ammunition in a report dated March 11, 2002 titled: Preliminary Assessment of the Terminal Wounding Effects of Selected RBCD Ammunition. In this memo testing was performed in “calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin, a tissue simulant with a well proven correlation with human tissue.” Figure 10. I disagree with Dr. Robert’s assessment of ballistic gelatin “wounding effects” in that the correlation to human tissue is incorrect. Human tissue is not homogeneous, period. The purpose of gelatin is to examine similar bullet type’s ex-vivo (not in live tissue). For example I have observed hundreds of gunshot wounds in-vivo (live tissue) and have seen jacketed hollow point bullets not expand that reliably expand in gelatin, bullets often separate from their jackets in living tissue when they don’t in gelatin; these occurrences simply demonstrate that ballistic gelatin is not a 100% accurate predictive impact medium substitute for living tissue. The Le Mas AP 9mm round fragmented/shattered in living tissue as was advertised despite the fact that in calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin as reported by Dr. Gary Roberts, the same bullet core did not expand or fragment. Living tissue necropsy showed that the Le Mas 9mm AP bullet fragments into innumerable pieces, each causing a separate wound channel. As was demonstrated with the rifle ammunition during wound explorations, the Le Mas handgun ammunition also demonstrated devastating temporary cavity effects on adjacent tissue with greater permanent cavity(s) tissue destruction, higher potential for hemorrhage and a quicker end to the brain’s ability to maintain coordinated function, i.e., the ability to hurt you. Dr. Roberts additionally stated in his report that the tissue wounding effects of the Le Mas Ltd. 9mm AP ammunition created less destruction than conventional jacket hollow point ammunition. Based on the observed performance in living tissue, I have to ask why such a negative critique was given to this bullet technology. Was the evaluator (GKR) pre-biased therefore limiting fair evaluations? As a practicing Trauma Surgeon I am left with only one answer, Dr. Roberts is protecting a biased opinion that is open to scrutiny by the medical and scientific world. His allegations toward Le Mas ammunition are unfounded, non-scientific and refutable. The real world evaluation that I witnessed refute all allegations he has made as to the non-performance of this incredible ammunition. As a concerned surgical scientist, tactical EMS physician and American, I want the best equipment in the hands of our military and law enforcement personnel. If that equipment is not of the ‘usual and customary’ type than it is up to progressive individuals to promote it’s appropriate testing and hopeful use in the future. From a trauma surgical standpoint, I expect to see nice round holes through living tissue from any of the currently available law enforcement JHP ammunition bullets. The Le Mas ammunition creates a completely different wounding pattern that increases the potential incapacitation with respect to either thoracic cavity or appendage impacts.

[The Reaper]

Unlike conventional JHP ammunition, the Le Mas AP bullet designs greatly increase probability for incapacitation from a shoulder or extremity due to the greatly increased internal tissue damage that would render the limb useless in terms of continue normal neuromuscular and/or vascular function. Figure 11. Rear leg and ham tissue destruction from LeMas 9mm SMG. Because of emergent Homeland Security threats since the events of “September 11, 2001”, law enforcement first responder duty ammunition performance should now address both the requirement to penetrate armor and effectively incapacitate threats without increasing over penetration liabilities to the public. Current FBI ballistic gelatin testing protocols based on the single event 20 year old “Miami Shootout” after action report rationales still limit today the design parameters today for military and law enforcement ammunition. The Le Mas Ltd. Law Enforcement / Military Armor Piercing Limited Penetration duty ammunition provides greater tissue injury with less over penetration liability than existing non AP duty ammunition, yet is still deemed substandard by “ballistic experts” because of its performance in ballistic gelatin; this must change. If we were all restricted by dogma, proof in ballistic gelatin rather than experimenting in new ideas, products or techniques than we are relegated to relive the past when all we had were muskets or single shot rifles and revolvers, and the art of wound ballistics were crude and inadequate. In my world of Trauma Surgery and Critical Care, if we depended on only one ‘standard’ method to evaluate a new practice we would be living in the past with many more deaths from all types of injuries than we have today. If a LEO or military person were to attempt to save my life, the lives of my family, or defend my country against acts of terrorism, I would want them armed with the equipment that would offer the greatest chance of operational success; reliable firearms, ammunition with maximum incapacitation potential and excellent training. With continued reports being published in both civilian and military publications of ‘failure to stop’ issues with presently used ammunition, many ballistic experts have pushed for new caliber weapons to address lack of lethality and incapacitation. I suggest changing ammunition; effective ammunition that performs its intended ballistic mission will place the advantage in the hands of our military and law enforcement personnel. This seems a better use of resources rather than pay for new caliber weapons with repetitive bullet designs destined to have similar problems of the past at an enormous cost. Bullets are intended to kill. With respect to Homeland Security and the current Global War on Terrorism, ‘failure to stop’ should not be an option. Sydney Vail, M.D., F.A.C.S. -Director of Trauma Surgery & Trauma Critical Care, Carilion Medical Center, Roanoke, Virginia -Operational Medical Director, Tactical Emergency Medical Support, Salem, VA, Emergency Response Team -Instructor, International School of Tactical Medicine, Palm Springs, CA

[rubberneck]

Thanks for the Good info.

[swatsurgeon]

FYI, the above editorial was written by me but posted by TR due to administrative functions for a word document on PS.com All content is my opinion without influence or bias from outside parties. ss

[NousDefionsDoc]

Great report! Thanks for taking the time Syd and thanks for posting it Boss.

[Team Sergeant]

Syd, Great post! I know a few more "Trauma" surgeons that will be interested in these findings..... TS (Isn't Dr. Gary Roberts a dentist ???)

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Nothing like giving a dentist a well deserved root canal without the benefit of anesthesia. Great report!!

[CPTAUSRET]

Nothing like giving a dentist a well deserved root canal without the benefit of anesthesia. Great report!! Right on!

[Sdiver]

Great report Doc !!! I knew the importance of finding out what kind of weapon was used in a GSW, while in the field (civvilian side), now I'll be asking what type of ammo was involved too.

[Peregrino]

Doc (SS) - Very nicely done. It's about time somebody called the "jello junkies" on the carpet for comparing apples to oranges. Loved the "homogeneous vs. heterogeneous" part. You would have thought it should be a blinding flash of the obvious. Good luck with the publication issues. My .02 - Peregrino

[MtnGoat]

FYI, the above editorial was written by me but posted by TR due to administrative functions for a word document on PS.com All content is my opinion without influence or bias from outside parties. ss SS That is some "freakin" great writting, some really good info. I learned a lot from that "report" Thanks for the word of mouth. VG

[The Reaper]

Can anyone here explain the difference between the 9mm LeMas round's performance in Pics 7 and 8 against the gelatin shot in Pic 10? If the gelatin were an accurate predictor of ballistic performance, you would expect the LeMas round to create a simple through and through wound in tissue with a small permanent crush cavity and with 18" of penetration, a tendency to overpenetrate. Yet the round clearly comes apart and shreds tissue in a large blast type fashion, creating a massive permanent wound without exiting the target. Can anyone defend the use of gelatin as a simulant for evaluation of terminal ballistics with the LeMas ammo? I wonder what other bullets perform differently in live tissue than in gelatin? Are there some ricebowl issues here? TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Nice work, Doc.

[mugwump]

Can anyone here explain the difference between the 9mm LeMas round's performance in Pics 7 and 8 against the gelatin shot in Pic 10? TR It looks to me like there are a significant number of fragments at about 4.5" along the gelatin track. With a starting weight of 60gr and recovered weight of 40gr it appears the bullet may have left a significant fraction of its 33% weight loss there. I assume the fragments peeled off some distance before the point where they ended up. Four inches seems to be a resonable "depth" for the pig heart - if so it could explain the massive shredding observed. Are the head-on and side gelatin photos cattywampus? It looks like six is twelve, photo to photo, from the placment of the fragments. It makes sense to me that passing through materials of differeing densities, as in a body, could dramatically affect the fragmentation of a bullet. The red caption ("Despite hyperbole...") implies some dispute here. I assume there is "history" here?

[swatsurgeon]

there were pieces 2, 5, maybe up to 10 or 12 grain at the largest, and by x-rays that we took, there were 100's of pieces that is consistent with near complete fragmentation of the metal part of the bullet. The clear difference is as TR points out. The gel block has little fragmentation and very little/almost no evidence of a temporary cavity. The permanent cavity is the most pronounced aspect of that picture. In real tissue the temporary cavity was DRAMATIC and all 100-500 permanent cavities left a devistating wounding pattern. The bottom line is that there is NO CORRELATION from one 'artificial' medium to the live tissue with respect to this ammunition. It does not take a rocket scientist, or brain surgeon to see this....it is plainly obvious. yes, your honor, I swear to the integrity of the digital photos, they were not edited: I was there doing the dissections of the animals and the pics are exact representations of what I dissected....it's the truth and nothing but the truth...it's my reputation on the line and I'm not about to jeapordize it for any reason or any one. ss

[APLP]

It looks to me like there are a significant number of fragments at about 4.5" along the gelatin track. With a starting weight of 60gr and recovered weight of 40gr it appears the bullet may have left a significant fraction of its 33% weight loss there. I assume the fragments peeled off some distance before the point where they ended up. Four inches seems to be a resonable "depth" for the pig heart - if so it could explain the massive shredding observed. Are the head-on and side gelatin photos cattywampus? It looks like six is twelve, photo to photo, from the placment of the fragments. It makes sense to me that passing through materials of differeing densities, as in a body, could dramatically affect the fragmentation of a bullet. The red caption ("Despite hyperbole...") implies some dispute here. I assume there is "history" here? The approximate weight of the bullet core construction material is 41.0 grains. The recovered bullet core projectile was measured at 39.5 grains. Although the jacket material was shed during the gelatin impact the bullet core construction lost approximately 1.5 grains of mass during the 18.1 inches of penetration. The Le Mas bullet also demonstrated almost no expansion as it passed through the calibrated tissue simulant as is noted in the report. Additional ballistic gelatin testing by Mr. Roberts for the same Le Mas AP 9mm bullet design after first penetrating hard 3A armor also showed the recovered bullet core material to also show little to no expansion.

[swatsurgeon]

And as APLP points out, the gel covered by armor had NO, let me repeat NO correlation to tissue covered by armor. The same devastating effects were observed in the live tissue after the round penetrated armor, either IIIa or 3/8ths armor plate....not seen with gel simulant. ss

[swatsurgeon]

An issue that some people have about the LeMas ammo seems to come from the inability to adequately explain how the round "does what it does". I know for a fact Coke and Pepsi each guard their recipe in a vault; it is a 'trade secret' that others try to replicate....and criticize. My interest is simply the terminal effects on living tissue, with or without armor over it. I have my own theories on how the bullet fragments, when and why, but that interest does not stop me from from saying good things about it.....being critical of an propietary technology is not what I'm after. I can't explain how we do 3-D reconstructions on our state of the art 64 slice CT scanner...but I use it because it helps me diagnose my patients. Same with this ammo, I may not be able to explain how the bullet works but have seen the end result and have been impressed with it. ss

[The Reaper]

Exactly my point, Doc. I cannot explain how it works. I only care that it does what they claim, consistently. I cannot tell you how a transmitted signal to a television is translated into a picture either, but I do not really care, as long as it works. Frankly, I believe that efforts to explain the technology by those who do not really know have damaged the credibility of the ammo as well. As long as it blows big holes in bad guys, no matter where it hits, the physics of how that happens is not a real concern of mine, unless I am trying to defeat it, or compete with it. TR

[Peregrino]

Direct tie-in with the "Laws of the Natural Universe" thread: "If it sounds dumb but it works - it's not dumb". I'm with TR - I don't have to know how it works, all I care about is that it does. If the testing media can't adequately explain observed "real world" results, maybe it's time to relook the testing protocols. My .02 - Peregrino

[dave13]

Can anyone confirm the first two paragraphs in this article? http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=577 It talks about how special operations forces are currently using this ammo in the field right now, just wondering if it bs. Thank you, Dave

[The Reaper]

Can anyone confirm the first two paragraphs in this article? http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=577 It talks about how special operations forces are currently using this ammo in the field right now, just wondering if it bs. Thank you, Dave Why would you ask us about the veracity of a thread on another website? David Crane wrote the article, why not ask him at defensereview? TR

[dave13]

I apologize, it will not happen again. Dave

[Team Sergeant]

Can anyone confirm the first two paragraphs in this article? http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=577 It talks about how special operations forces are currently using this ammo in the field right now, just wondering if it bs. Thank you, Dave Where do you think you are? You eat a whole lot of stupid for breakfast? Do you think we are airsofters or members of tacticalchildren.com? You think we're here at your whim and will answer any and all questions classified or unclassified? I don't want to see you post for about 6 months. If so I'll ban you. The rest of you do try to keep your heads out of your ass. Team Sergeant

[swatsurgeon]

Gentlemen, an additional fact of 'validation' to add to my commentary. I just spoke to a representative from Mullins Ammunition. They design and manufacture different types of ammo and posed the question: for some of your ammo, is there a difference between what you see in a block of gel vs. what you see in live tissue with the same round? Answer: "yes, a dramatic difference, there is no comparison. The gel doesn't show the degree of injury that the tissue does" To clarify, they hunt with their ammo as their 'live tissue test medium' during regular hunting season. He stated that gel "doesn't give you the full picture of what the round will do to tissue" Now, this is the first of what I believe will be more opinions on the lack of a 'high degree of corrolation' between gel and tissue...as I stated in my commentary. Gel is useful to test certain types of ammunition as to it's inherent ballistic properties....if the ammo conforms to the 'norm', which LeMas does not...it is a different technology...same shape, same caliber, but different in how it performs. I have no idea the composition of their rounds, and don't care. It works as it is stated it to, reproducibly. I don't know what composition DVDs and CDs are but they work as advertised. I don't know all of the blends of metals are in the blade of my pocket knife, but I bought it because it has the features I wanted, it works as advertised....so does LeMas....the only people that should not like this round are the ones that produce gel since it is not the correct test medium for this round.

[The Reaper]

...the only people that should not like this round are the ones that produce gel since it is not the correct test medium for this round. Exactly. There are people whose entire professional reputation is staked to ballistic gelatin as a test media for terminal ballistics. You are threatening their livelihood, and they (and their sychophants) do not like it. Kind of like the heretics who were tortured to death for arguing facts, in the face of logic. I have never had to threaten to whip somebody's ass to win an intellectual argument. At the same time, I have never seen so many people who have absolutely no personal experience with a product argue so vehemently against it. It is like a Ford vs. Chevy argument between a test driver and an elementary school student who is basing all of his knowledge on what his daddy told him. Thanks for having the intestinal fortitude to say and do the right thing. Those who are attacking you without having tested the ammo themselves should be ashamed for they are truly tools being used by somone for his own personal advancement. DOL- TR

[Texian]

Aside from LeMas AP 9mm ammo, is there any data on the actual terminal balistics (not gelatin tests) for the non-armor piercing 60gr 9mm rounds available to civilians from RBCD? I've been researching and have yet to find information similar to that which the Doctor has provided.

[Team Sergeant]

Exactly. There are people whose entire professional reputation is staked to ballistic gelatin as a test media for terminal ballistics. TR And this is directly linked to their profit margin. It’s remarkable what the sheeple will believe. The majority acquire all their information from a single source, even though that source is a snake-oil salesman with a profit motive. A good number of these followers would rather be told what to think instead of how to think and this contributes to the reason of why the snake-oil salesmen flourish. Dr. Vail (and LeMas) has shaken the very foundation of an enormous industry. The sheeple being sheeple are afraid of change. The snake-oil salesmen take advantage of this deep rooted fear and reassure the sheeple all is well and nothing will change. Personally I see a deep crack in the foundation. As some become more aware and start to think logically they will come to make that leap of logic; we are evolving, from spears to swords to bow and arrow to lead bullet, to copper jacketed, to armor piercing pistol bullets with enhanced lethality. Soon we will leave the kinetic energy weapons behind, again the snake oil salesmen will appear and the argument will continue…. These snake oil salesman are on every internet “tactical” website, be it gun, ammo, weapon, knife etc and they are there for a profit. Everyone is struggling for their piece of the pie. The sad truth is some have no integrity. They will outright lie, cheat and steal for profit. The firearms industry websites with “forums” are the worst. They know no bounds save one, making money. My personal favorites are run by civilians touting themselves as “tactical masters”. They are nothing more than “self appointed” snake oil salesmen if you ask me. If you have never faced anything more dangerous than a well armed block of ballistic gelatin you should not be offering opinions concerning anything tactical let alone running a tactical website forum. The only thing more unintelligent than these snake oil salesmen are their followers. We do not discuss tactics on our forum. There is a reason for this, we are capable (and recently demonstrated) of overthrowing countries. We do not share our training, techniques, tactics or procedures with the world. Much of what we learn is classified and the very reason we don’t discuss TTP’s. The ball is in your court Dr. Roberts. I've no doubts as to why you will not respond to Dr. Vail on this public forum…….. We are not sheeple. We have no profit motive, no sponsors etc. If you prove to us that LeMas ammo is crap we will laud your triumph. So far all you have done is talk ballistic gelatin with sheeple, let’s talk tissue damage with real professionals. Oh and for the record, I’ll take the opinion of a TRAUMA surgeon over that of a DENTIST concerning live tissue injuries every time. And if I ever find myself facing an armed and angry block of ballistic gelatin I’ll be sure to consult with the sheeple on the best method of neutralizing that block of ballistic gelatin. Team Sergeant

[swatsurgeon]

Texian, I know nothing of the ballistic information of RBCD ammo. It is different than the LeMas...same manufacturer, different make-up (as per information forwarded to me)....so can't help you on that one. ss

[rubberneck]

On another board I frequent one of Doc Roberts followers equated Doc Roberts with Doc Holliday and did so with a straight face. As my old man used to say never argue with an idiot, as he will only drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience. Keep up the good work Dr Vail.

[Texian]

Texian, I know nothing of the ballistic information of RBCD ammo. It is different than the LeMas...same manufacturer, different make-up (as per information forwarded to me)....so can't help you on that one. ss Roger that, Doctor. Thanks.

[x SF med]

In the dark ages, against unarmored opponents, we used Glasser Safety Slugs, nasty little buggers - LeMas seems a huge improvement, with the AP capability. Glad I don't have to try to patch up any recipients of those bad boys. Can you say, "ouch, that hurts a little" ?

[The Reaper]

Roger that, Doctor. Thanks. IIRC, the RBCD has similar performance in tissue, without the enhanced AP characteristics of the BMT/LeMas. The LeMas rounds are optimized within the capabilities for certain platforms and desired performance. They have SMG versions of pistol rounds and carbine versions of rifle rounds. The RBCD are designed to optimize tissue destruction. I am sure that APLP can explain it better when he is on again. HTH. TR

[TheRealChuck]

Gentlemen: I am Chuck from TacticalForums. I expect that I will be unceremoniously canked, but I'm a little surprised at the wholesale buy-in here. I have no beef with Stan Bulmer; he and I have corresponded. He provided me with the same information many of you have, and I evaluated it. I have asked him many questions, and in a lot of cases, he has been unable to adequately answer them. So here is my rebuttal: 1. I can't explain TV either, but my Dad can. Stan and Sid claim that no one can explain LeMas, but Dr. Martin Fackler explained it early on. LeMas performs no different than any other light round fired at extremely high velocities. Any comparison with standard 5.56 or 7.62 is inaccurate and misleading. Those rounds use heavier bullets and lower velocities; if I recall correctly, the difference is almost 1,000 fps. If Stan claims that the bullet design is the secret behind the performance of his ammo, the honest comparison would be comparison testing with the same caliber, same bullet weight, and same velocities, and his bullet vs. an industry bullets. But Stan has not done that. Instead, he has resorted to marketing literature and videos zooming in without commentary on the bullet passing through a steel plate with what appears to be visible flames. Leading the view to infer peculiar that the bullet has peculiar properties or other such nonsense. It's called a varmint round. A few years ago, there was an issue because certain 9mm rounds were penetrating LE body armor (not the Zylon debacle), which stopped similar rounds. The only real issue was that the bullet travelled at a higher velocity, which caused the penetration. It is very simple physics, which remains unchanged despite the current debate. 2. Question: How many (SF Soldiers, Soldiers, cops, Feds, DOCTORS, etc.) does it take to change a lightbulb? Answer: Five. One to change the lightbulb and four to sit back and say, "I could do it better than that." 3. I know a few SF guys that think LeMas is crap, what makes you gentlemen so uniquely qualified, or should I say more uniquely qualified to bless off on this ammo, and why should I give a damn about your opinion. So far, I have read that the opinions here are based on LeMas marketing, and the unscientific review of one Doctor. I asked Ben Thomas the same thing I'll ask you people, anyone here perform an autopsy of a someone shot with LeMas in the field? 4. I have spoken and corresponded with Dr. Roberts, and I have asked him some hard questions about his ballistics background. He answered my questions to my satisfaction. He is an expert in the field of wound ballistics. Neither Stan Bulmer of Sid Vail claim expertise in the field. 5. Neither Dr. Roberts, Dr. Fackler (who also mocked LeMas ammo early on and accurately predicted that it would be a light bullet pushed to high velocities), nor others who decry LeMas ammo, only preach the use of ballistic gelatin as a test medium. It is one means of measuring consistency and expected performance. 6. Bad guys drop through one of three things. Trauma to the CNS, hemorrhagic shock, or through psychological shock. In order to cause the first two the bullet has to penetrate adequately and damage blood vessels and/or organs. I saw Glasers mentioned. What happens when the bad guy is wearing a thick coat, or when the bullet has to pass through an arm, or the side window of a car. The FBI and International Wound Ballistics Association recommendation of 12-18" of calibrated calibrated gelatin factors those things in. I have footage of an officer being shot under the Arm with a .25 after shooting the bad guy five times in the chest with .38 rounds. The bad guy survived, the officer died because the "mouse gun" round passed over the top of his body armor, through his arm pit, and severed his aorta. I also have footage of a bad guy arguing with an officer after being gut shot with a .45, taking the officers radio, and actively resisting a tackedown. 8. Don't question me because I'm SF, and I know everything tactical is BS. It's pathetic. I've seen absolutely no coherent arguments for this ammo on this forum. I've seen no one bring in their first or second hand experience with teh ammo or otherwise. I've seen an admitted ignorance of the subject, but it works, and references to TacticalChildren.com. I've also seen guys using their current or former MOS, which grants very little knowledge on the subject of wound ballistics, to say shut up, I know best because I'm in SF. Wow, I'm blown away. 9. And Dave13, you are the only person on this forum who asked a critical question. I'll answer. It is not being used officially. It is not in the military system. I suppose some unit might have bought some of the ammo as a Commercial Off the Shelf item, but the ammo has NOT been validated by the the Army or SOCOM and approved for issue. The reference to classified is pathetic BS and an implication that it's too secret for your poor little ears. Chuck

[The Reaper]

Gentlemen:

I am Chuck from TacticalForums. I expect that I will be unceremoniously canked, but I'm a little surprised at the wholesale buy-in here. I have no beef with Stan Bulmer; he and I have corresponded. He provided me with the same information many of you have, and I evaluated it. I have asked him many questions, and in a lot of cases, he has been unable to adequately answer them. So here is my rebuttal:

1. I can't explain TV either, but my Dad can. Stan and Sid claim that no one can explain LeMas, but Dr. Martin Fackler explained it early on. LeMas performs no different than any other light round fired at extremely high velocities. Any comparison with standard 5.56 or 7.62 is inaccurate and misleading. Those rounds use heavier bullets and lower velocities; if I recall correctly, the difference is almost 1,000 fps. If Stan claims that the bullet design is the secret behind the performance of his ammo, the honest comparison would be comparison testing with the same caliber, same bullet weight, and same velocities, and his bullet vs. an industry bullets. But Stan has not done that. Instead, he has resorted to marketing literature and videos zooming in without commentary on the bullet passing through a steel plate with what appears to be visible flames. Leading the view to infer peculiar that the bullet has peculiar properties or other such nonsense. It's called a varmint round.

A few years ago, there was an issue because certain 9mm rounds were penetrating LE body armor (not the Zylon debacle), which stopped similar rounds. The only real issue was that the bullet travelled at a higher velocity, which caused the penetration. It is very simple physics, which remains unchanged despite the current debate.

2. Question: How many (SF Soldiers, Soldiers, cops, Feds, DOCTORS, etc.) does it take to change a lightbulb?

Answer: Five. One to change the lightbulb and four to sit back and say, "I could do it better than that."

3. I know a few SF guys that think LeMas is crap, what makes you gentlemen so uniquely qualified, or should I say more uniquely qualified to bless off on this ammo, and why should I give a damn about your opinion. So far, I have read that the opinions here are based on LeMas marketing, and the unscientific review of one Doctor. I asked Ben Thomas the same thing I'll ask you people, anyone here perform an autopsy of a someone shot with LeMas in the field?

4. I have spoken and corresponded with Dr. Roberts, and I have asked him some hard questions about his ballistics background. He answered my questions to my satisfaction. He is an expert in the field of wound ballistics. Neither Stan Bulmer of Sid Vail claim expertise in the field.

5. Neither Dr. Roberts, Dr. Fackler (who also mocked LeMas ammo early on and accurately predicted that it would be a light bullet pushed to high velocities), nor others who decry LeMas ammo, only preach the use of ballistic gelatin as a test medium. It is one means of measuring consistency and expected performance.

6. Bad guys drop through one of three things. Trauma to the CNS, hemorrhagic shock, or through psychological shock. In order to cause the first two the bullet has to penetrate adequately and damage blood vessels and/or organs. I saw Glasers mentioned. What happens when the bad guy is wearing a thick coat, or when the bullet has to pass through an arm, or the side window of a car. The FBI and International Wound Ballistics Association recommendation of 12-18" of calibrated calibrated gelatin factors those things in. I have footage of an officer being shot under the Arm with a .25 after shooting the bad guy five times in the chest with .38 rounds. The bad guy survived, the officer died because the "mouse gun" round passed over the top of his body armor, through his arm pit, and severed his aorta. I also have footage of a bad guy arguing with an officer after being gut shot with a .45, taking the officers radio, and actively resisting a tackedown.

8. Don't question me because I'm SF, and I know everything tactical is BS. It's pathetic. I've seen absolutely no coherent arguments for this ammo on this forum. I've seen no one bring in their first or second hand experience with teh ammo or otherwise. I've seen an admitted ignorance of the subject, but it works, and references to TacticalChildren.com. I've also seen guys using their current or former MOS, which grants very little knowledge on the subject of wound ballistics, to say shut up, I know best because I'm in SF. Wow, I'm blown away.

9. And Dave13, you are the only person on this forum who asked a critical question. I'll answer. It is not being used officially. It is not in the military system. I suppose some unit might have bought some of the ammo as a Commercial Off the Shelf item, but the ammo has NOT been validated by the the Army or SOCOM and approved for issue. The reference to classified is pathetic BS and an implication that it's too secret for your poor little ears.

Chuck

Chuck:

You are not going to be "canked" until you do something to warrant it. That is not the way we do business here.

I am not a wound ballistician, but I am not a dentist purporting to be a terminal ballistics expert either. Let's drop the argument that LeMas cannot explain why the rounds work and talk about what they do. I am curious why you are here arguing the points rather than the expert, Dr. Roberts, but I will assume that he is busy elsewhere and will come to do his own work later.

I do not now nor have I ever been employed by LeMas. I have not received anything from them other than test ammo. I have no vested interest here other than seeing that my brothers in harms way have the best tools possible. It astounds me to see that there are other Americans who would deny those resources to them. I have seen what the LeMas ammo does and I would rather carry it into combat that any of the alternatives, and yes, I have used the Mark 262, its variants, and fired the 6.8.

Over the course of the past three years, I have fired several hundred rounds of the LeMas into everything from steel plate to live tissue. One thing that did not seem logical to shoot was ballistic gelatin, as I have yet to encounter any in a combat zone outside of a DFAC. My main complaint is that there are tons of people who have never fired a round or handled a round of the LeMas ammuntiion who are parrotting what they have been told. Frankly, as you know as an MP, arguments have more merit when they are based on firsthand knowledge rather than hearsay. To attempt to discredit those you disagree with by ad hominem attacks is the mark of someone insecure in their position. Does personally atttacking someone with real credentials and posting snide little comments make your argument stronger and more professional, or less? What is next, death threats for Dr. Vail by tacticalforum members? You have already posted his photo there, should we look for his home address and family members listed there as well? Is this how professionals debate?

Bottom line up front, how many rounds of LeMas have you fired against what targets, and if none, what is the source of your information?

I am a Special Forces soldier, which clearly you do not find to be anything special, but I am comfortable in my role. I do have a fairly good background in weapons and ammunition, and have used pretty much everything from .17 HMR to .50BMG. I have fired quite a few varmint rounds and have never seen one perform like the LeMas. The varmint rounds have a tendency to come apart very quickly, and give nasty almost surface wounds of an inch or two. The LeMas rounds penetrate deeper and leave a much more significant injury. Fragmentation in tissue is almost complete and particles are dispersed radially as far as 20" from the path of the bullet. I have shot animals with this round and the wounds are virtually identical to those in the LeMas photos and Dr. Vail's. Doesn't a lightly constructed varmint bullet at very high velocities come apart quickly in ballistic gelatin? Why does the LeMas not fragment at all in gelatin, yet it does almost perfectly in tissue? Could it be that ballistic gelatin is not the best medium for evaluating terminal ballistic pertformance in live tissue?

I think that as a junior MP, your joke about SF soldiers is pretty laughable. Since I am trying to keep my side of this professional, I will defer from the usual fat cop jokes here.

Open your mind just a crack, Chuck, and try to wrap it around this: Dr. Vail just did a necropsy of live tissue, shot under controlled conditions, and as a qualified trauma surgeon, told you what it would do in humans. Would you feel better if he had shot the hogs in Baghdad? Do you think that a bad guy in Fallujah has tissue that will not respond like tissue does here in the US? He has already told you what it will do to a live tissue target who is shot anywhere. In combat, in Iraq, or in your bedroom. Why would a bullet entering a human body in the Middle East perform any differently than the same round entering a hog in Arkansas?

Furthermore, your argument there smacks of the, "Well we will have to see how it performs in combat before we will issue any", and "Well, we can't issue any till we know how it performs in combat" conundrum. You don't want soldiers armed with it because you say it doesn't work, yet you demand that it be used before you will arm soldier with it. Clearly, with that logic, it will never be tested, used, or adopted. What are we afraid of?

[The Reaper]

As far as Gary Roberts' qualifications, I will acknowledge that he is a ballistics expert in ballistic gelatin testing. I will defer to a trauma surgeon to tell me how rounds perform in live tissue. If I get hit by a bullet, I think that I know who I would rather have put me back together as well. How can you, a layman, question the professional credentials of a physician who has examined thousands of gunshot wounds? Answer me this, Chuck. How many gunshot wounds has Dr. Roberts treated? How many in humans? How many necropsies or autopsies has he performed?

I am glad that you have an extensive video collection. I have seen videos as well, but prefer to do my testing for myself. My live tissue testing tracks almost exactly with that of Dr. Vail's. There is a penetrating wound channel which terminates in an almost explosive fragmentation of the projo. The examining physician when I used it stated that it looked to him like an internal blast injury rather than a gunshot wound. Have you stuck your hand into a wound made by the LeMas? I have. If I put a 6-10" blast cavity inside of a bad guy's torso, with frag radiating out to 20", his fighting days are over, immediately. If I hit an extremity, it is gone, shredded, amputatable at the next highest joint, if he doesn't bleed out first.

You are correct in that the ammo has not been adopted by the US Army. In fact, I do not believe that they have even tested it in live tissue. I suspect that a large part of that is due to misinformation by people who have never fired a round of it, or if they have, spent it shooting Jell-O.

In summary, for you and the rest of the crew who are parrotting what they have been told:

The ammo works in live tissue, and it works very well. Some of it also works as an AP round. I have fired it, and can verify that it does. I have seen enough shots from it myself, in person, to know that what Dr. Vail is saying is correct. The videos and photos Stan has posted are entirely consistent with my experience with the ammo as well.

I cannot speak for LeMas, but I am pretty sure that if someone wanted to test the ammunition yet again, in live tissue, they could arrange for your experts and ammo to be used in a head to head shoot-off in live tissue, under controlled conditions, with your witnesses present.

Professionals do not call other professionals names, threaten to beat their asses for disagreeing, or post their pictures on the internet. I think that pretty much says it all about the differences between the sites, and the posters.

Real experts will test for themselves, and make their own arguments in person, with scientifically repeatable data to support it. Not send their fan club to argue for them. Where is the rebuttal with comparable live tissue testing from Dr. Roberts, with the assistance of a competent trauma surgeon, to refute Dr. Vail's report? In fact, where is Dr. Roberts? Why is he not arguing his own points? Stan is here, as is Dr. Vail. GKR is a regular here as balpro, he was here at 0317 this morning and drops by all of the time to read. Let him quit reading and say what is on his mind, to Stan and Dr. Vail directly. Not to offend, but is it too much to ask for one scientist to argue with another one directly, rather than using lackeys who have never fired a round of the ammo in question?

What has he got to lose by speaking up for himself?

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Chuck, You need to go to the introductions thread HERE (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=122948#post122948) and introduce your self.

[Texian]

IIRC, the RBCD has similar performance in tissue, without the enhanced AP characteristics of the BMT/LeMas. The LeMas rounds are optimized within the capabilities for certain platforms and desired performance. They have SMG versions of pistol rounds and carbine versions of rifle rounds. The RBCD are designed to optimize tissue destruction. I am sure that APLP can explain it better when he is on again. HTH. TR Thanks for the info, Sir. I believe I'll go out, buy a box, and try it for myself.

[The Reaper]

Thanks for the info, Sir. I believe I'll go out, buy a box, and try it for myself. If you do not plan to shoot live targets, take two pieces of meat of roughly the same size and construction. Shoot one with your carry load and the other with the LeMas. Examine the meat when done and let us know what you found. TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Yes, please do. Chuck, I believe you have a question from Reaper on the table. Have you shot LeMas on tissue? I haven't had the opportunity as yet, logistics are a problem.

[TheRealChuck]

TR: Thanks for your response. First of all, I have all the respect in the world for SF guys. But I spent 11.5 years on active duty, been friends with, and worked with SF guys, and I have no illusions either. (And I'm neither fat, nor a junior MP.)

I have purposefully not posted Dr. Roberts curriculum vitae or the explanations he gave me. If you want to know his qualifications, which do go beyond ballistic gelatin testing, you'll have to ask him. But I do count him as a friend and professional associate.

As I said, Stan provided me with his marketing packets. I corresponded with him at length. He did not answer my questions to my satisfaction. Dr. Roberts has invited Stan to conduct scientific testing, but Stan has refused.

Next, I never posted anyone's picture, or threatened to beat anyone's ass. I'm sure you'll agree that professionals don't question another's credentials without knowing what they are talking about. A representative from this forum did just that, which sparked SabreSix's rebuttal.

I came here because I found this forum, found the post, and was amazed at the collective thinking. No discussion, no debate; just discussions on ballistic gelatin, "TacticalChildren," and the one guy who dares question the collective, gets smacked down hard. I have a big mouth, I was bored, and I decided to put my .02 in. My post was immediately deleted by the mods, then reinstated after an email exchange with Team Sergeant. I didn't ask for it, but there you go.

As far as Stan, Sidney, and Gary; yeah, I'd like to see it, too. But it's gone on and on at lightfighter.net and TacticalForums.com. The arguments have been made, the gauntlets have been thrown. I do find it funny, though, that at Defense Review, a disclaimer was made that "BMT" stands for 'Blended Metal Technology', which is a trademark, not a description of bullet composition." It seems that Stan only backed down from the claim of "Blended Metal" after Dr. Roberts obtained scientific analysis on the construction of LeMas bullets. And I shouldn't be suspicious? I'll grant that you gentlmen probably have no fiduciary dog in this fight. But Stan has a LOT riding on this. And he is seeking support wherever he can find it.

I have not shot LeMas, nor have I claimed to. But I have seen deceptive marketing practises, a lot of hype, newspaper stories promoting the round, etc. I have also not seen honest comparative testing of the round. No one has done that yet, and no one has addressed my point. Yeah, I'm suspicious. If the round is so special, I've given a baseline for what I'd like to see: same caliber, same bullet weight pushed to the same velocity against the same targets; LeMas bullet construction against other bullet designs.

I'd also like to see what the bullet does after passing through a thick coat, a car windshield, etc. But I guess that's just wishful thinking.

Chuck

[The Reaper]

Chuck:

I think that you will find that here, you will get what you give. A professional comment will get a professional discussion, mud-slinging will likely lead to a banning, rather than any personal slander or photo posting. I never said that you were fat, BTW.

The surprising thing to me is that GKR is on here frequently, and I for one would invite a discussion between him and Dr. Vail, but he seems unwilling to pick up that glove here.

Frankly, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I believe that an open discussion between the two of them could get LeMas to agree to a head to head, with GKR and his experts/witnesses and their preferred loads in a head to head live tissue test against Dr. Vail and LeMas ammo. I could be mistaken though. It occurs that what Dr. Vail did would qualify as scientific testing, since he performed repeatable experimental testing in a field he is experienced and credentialled in, and evaluated it.

Strange to me that you found the discussion here "collective thinking" when the people providing most of the discussion have actually fired the rounds on tissue, unlike most forums, where people are merely expounding on what they have heard from second or third hand sources.

Hard to say what is hype till you have seen it work for yourself. If you doubt me, fine, but I would caution that an opinion carries a lot more weight when it is backed up by experience and empirical data. I have shot everything from their 9mm to their .300 Win Mag. For me, the key was that the rounds performed in a consistent manner and were destructive in a manner hard to imagine unless you have witnessed it for yourself. I have fired the rifle rounds against covered tissue as well as through glass and it performed in the same manner. I have seen it shot through cockpit glass, which is pretty tough stuff and some of their bullet designs can do it consistently.

I cannot explain how it functions, but as I noted, since varmint bullets seem to come apart pretty quickly in gelatin and the LeMas does not fragment in gelatin at all, how can that be the key to how it works? Has GKR done any live tissue testing at all?

Welcome aboard, BTW.

TR

[swatsurgeon]

Chuck,
I both appreciate and respect your opinion and participation in this discussion.. This is how we all can benefit by the wisdom of many...

You clearly have a backround that no one challanges or minimizes, no one here will call you a quack or fake unless you speak from the 3rd person; I would only request the same respect.

The Reaper's post to your initial one actually contained many of the points I wanted to make.

1) Gel has a place in both the scientific and real (military and LEO) world, that I do not argue.

2) Gel does not represent the full wounding capability of any round, sorry but this is a scientific truth. It gives the observer the ability to see the basic characteristics of a bullet's performance: permanent and if present, temporary cavity, a depth of penetration, etc.....that have NO defined correlation to the human body unless the bullet was shot into a human thigh that was devoid of skin and subcutaneous fat, fascia and bone...this is a simple truth that Dr. Fackler and Roberts must agree with; It is implied in Dr. FacKlers research and development papers on ballistic gel. The reference in my commentary from the lab at Penn State with the PhD engineers also stated the disparity from gel to tissue....they are alot more educated in these matters than you or I...this is their life's work (scientists...go figure)

3) Tissue testing is the final word on any ballistic technology. I recently had a patient shot with 2 .40 cal Gold Dots (by the police) to the chest. Both went into the chest cavity, through the lung and I retrieved both of them from the soft tissue under his arm. One was completely expanded (as predicted in gel, with a penetration of only 8 inches. The other was only 1/2 expanded, based on recovered diameter and traveled 6 inches, having struck a rib first. The patient was not only very much alive but only needed a chest tube for36 hours and then was released to the police. The Lt. that I spoke with about the condition of the patient thought I was putting him on when I said the patient would likely be discharged in just a few days...he expected a dead patient; his experience and training with the .40 cal Gold Dots was that this bad guy should be dead from 2 center of mass hits.
The fact that the people that make decisions about which ammo to field test and possibly use based on ballistic gel results, such as those produced by Dr. Roberts have kept the LeMas rounds from ever getting to a 'fair' trial. I absolutely agree with you...if we could autopsy a person shot with the ammo, we could see the 'real world' results. Unfortunately, the representation by Dr. Robert's lab, and likely the opinion of others, has made that possibility not happen. It needs to be tested in tissue, not gel to examine it's potential effects, its reproducible effects. The Gold Dots I mentioned had a 50% failure rate (interms of gel predicted behavior) as well as an alive patient. The same round in LeMas, if my predictions are true, would be a patient that would not have made it to the hospital alive due to either massive hemorrhage or inability to ventilate from massive lung tissue injury.
This is only one example of hundreds that I have that bullet performance in the human body was not validated by gel testing of that particular round.

Forget the name of the bullet, forget the BS/advertising/word of mouth that you have heard....if I offered you a new ammunition that promised to be reliable in your weapon, performed 100% of the time, provided maximum wounding in the human body that likely would end your battle/gun fight due to the terminal ballistics...would you be excited to use that ammo in the defense of your country or your home.
Believe it, it works and you can't have it because of the bad press it got from gel tests and word of mouth....I want this ammo in your hands to defend your family...it won't over penetrate the bad guy to harm your family member in the next room.

Do I have a passion about this, you're damn right I do because our guys in the sandbox and LEOs here using less than lethal rounds out of guns that should do the trick...it's the ammo that's wrong. Do I have a desire to see the truth said about everything ballistic...yeah, I do because too many major decisions are made on the basis of performance in gel...it is only a piece of the puzzle, not the entire story. Anyone that questions my ability to offer these opinion has a right to, but I have the right to my opinion and the proof to back them up. I have already found another bullet manufacturer that agrees that gel does not fully represent the wounding of tissue using their round. The sooner we stop protecting tradition to prevent progress, the better we will all be.

I say this here and believe it to be true: if those that make decisions about ammunition: FBI ballistics lab , DOD, NTOA, etc, would get together and be present at a live tissue demo of multiple bullet manufacturers, including LeMas, they will see that the commentary I wrote is both accurate and the truth. Why would I risk my reputation especially when I have no vested interest other than a curiosity of challanging dogma. I challange the status quo everyday at my job and have a reputation within the Trauma surgery world of just that.

Chuck, thank you for being the questioning person you are....you are the type of man that can make his decisions based on fact and oberved truths. I offer only those, no fantasy or pretense, no bullshit, I refuse to barter in it, my professional career is based on facts, science, art and the ability the disregard the status quo. LeMas works, forget all of the previous hype.
Also, if you have the ability to influence KM;his use of pictures and words is less than professional on all accounts, I think you would agree.

[Texian]

If you do not plan to shoot live targets, take two pieces of meat of roughly the same size and construction. Shoot one with your carry load and the other with the LeMas. Examine the meat when done and let us know what you found. TR Roger that, Sir. I'll report my findings here.

[swatsurgeon]

Chuck,
I forgot one point you brought up...the bullet that went thought a IIIa vest and one that went through 3/8th inch steel both still did the same thing....This I can't explain. How it can be AP and still cause the same degree of injury is beyond me. Yes we had x-rays and the dispersion of metal fragment was still there as though no vest or steel was infront of the animals.
Your question of glass is an excellent one...sorry, no answer on that. If I ever have the opportunity to be on-site at another shoot, I will do the glass infront of the tissue test.

My ability to educate is really not there. A person must want the knowledge to be able to learn, then my job is easy.
ss

[swatsurgeon]

BTW, if anyone is interested... I will not go back to a forum (tacticalforums) that uses terms like 'quack' to describe me. My professionalism prevents me from stooping to their immature level. Doctors that do this are typically relieved of their license to practice as are lawyers and other professionals. This site stands as a testimony to those that serve their country as professionals. They have welcomed a civilian (me) whose only offering to them is a higher intellect about what I practice and know and the ability to deal with reality and reason. The term 'expert' has been granted to me by many judges, attorneys, physicians and others, both civilian and federal when I testify in court and give lectures around the country. I really don't care for the term since it is arbitrary and sometimes earned for the wrong reasons, but that is for everyone else to figure out for themselves.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Don't question me because I'm SF, and I know everything tactical is BS. It's pathetic. I've seen absolutely no coherent arguments for this ammo on this forum. I've seen no one bring in their first or second hand experience with teh ammo or otherwise. I've seen an admitted ignorance of the subject, but it works, and references to TacticalChildren.com. I've also seen guys using their current or former MOS, which grants very little knowledge on the subject of wound ballistics, to say shut up, I know best because I'm in SF. Wow, I'm blown away. huck Gee Chuck, how do you really feel:rolleyes:

[swatsurgeon]

Dr. Roberts,
If you are reading this thread, I have posed an observation that waits for a reply.

"This is only one example of hundreds that I have that bullet performance in the human body was not validated by gel testing of that particular round."

Why is it that I have bullets in my office, in the coroners lab, in the Commonwealth Attorney's office that did not perform as predicted in ballistic gel. Un-expanded/partially-expanded, different levels of penetration, jacket separations are all facts in evidence in many of the cases I see. How is this possible if gel represents the terminal ballistics so accurately? Please note that we can discuss injury severity at the same time: comparisons of SXT's or Gold Dots in the thoracic or abdominal cavity vs the actual or predicted injury severity in a block of gel.
My only wish is that I am able to reach the appropriate people that have narrowed their mindset on the necessary properties of bullet wound formation: bullets are meant to kill; an injured patient or opponent is a mission failure.
Why is the human body a disconnect for you with respect to gel testing? This is all said with respect for you as an expert in terminal ballistics....living tissue is the realm of real world wound ballistics, is it not? If you have published or commented on the direct correlation of gel to tissue, I am happy to be educated.

[Gene Econ]

Guys:

Question about this Le Mas BMT ammunition.

Has ARL done any testing on this ammunition and if so, what are the results in terms of a mission needs statement or a requirements document?

I am also willing to bet that anyone who asks, Mr. Buehler will respond that the ammo isn't 'smart'. That their AP ammo is superior to other types of AP ammo and their anti personnel ammo is superior to other designs at short ranges, but they have no ammo that knows when to penetrate and when to expand or explode.

This alone gives credibility to the ammo and company. However, I will wait to read an ARL report as they are, IMHO, the final say on ammo.

Gene

[Odd Job]

Good day, gentlemen

I must declare first of all that I am a member of tacticalforums. I have not been a member there for long and I do not know any of the members there or here personally. I don't have any vested interest in a company, individual or product. The only interest I have is in projectiles and projectile injuries.

Let me start by saying that there are two issues here:

1) The debate about gel vs tissue as a test medium.
2) The debate about the validity and verifiable details surrounding the Le Mas bullet as a product.

As regards number (1) my stance is that ballistic gelatin cannot ever replicate the human body as a target medium exactly. I don't think anybody is going to dispute this. The three most pertinent points here are:

a) The body is composed of multiple densities and is not homogenous like the gel.
b) The range of clothing and intermediate targets in a real life shooting is not something that can be replicated or predicted before the fact.
c) The angles of incidence and range of fire in a real shooting are highly variable.

So if a question comes up about the use of gel to exactly simulate the human body as a target, we must all agree that this is not possible. My view at the moment is that we are all in agreement, even those who use gel daily for testing.

Now, this does not exclude gel entirely as a valid testing medium. For just as Dr Vail and I have seen projectiles that have been recovered at surgery which do not match typical expansion or deformation parameters in gel, we also have (I am assuming you have, Dr Vail, if your experience is similar to mine) examples of surgically-recovered projectiles that have expanded or suffered impact deformations that are at least similar to those observed in gel (or even water tank) firing. Some of these configurations have been exactly the same. This means that there is some overlap in the final expansion/deformation configuration of gel-fired projectiles and real life human shootings as is borne out by our experience in the hospital. There isn't any ammunition that I have seen and handled that has not at some point, because of the unique real-life shooting variables involved, expanded or deformed in a manner that has been demonstrated in gel or in water. Of course the exact percentages are a subject for a separate debate, but what I am saying is that there is demonstrable overlap (depending on circumstances) between gel firing and human firing, as regards all the ammunition that we have encountered to date. If I have seen this in my relatively small sample of cases (when compared to the number of shootings globally) then the number is significant and cannot be ignored. I have been provided various projectiles from ballistics laboratories in SA and in the US and I have compared these to retrieved projectiles in the hospital. Their features macroscopically, radiologically and in terms of behaviour in a magnetic resonance scanner have been comparable and similar in many cases.

Now, I understand that the bone of contention here is that the manufacturers of the Le Mas projectile claim that no such overlap exists in the behaviour of the projectile in living tissue versus a homogenous medium, for example gel. This means testing of the projectile by conventional means is not going to reveal the properties of the projectile upon impact with living tissue, according to the manufacturer's advertised claims.
Now I must point out here (and you must surely agree) that if this is indeed the case, then the Le Mas projectile is unlike anything that has ever been developed before. It must either have a unique construction, or unique materials, or a combination of both: after all, those are the features that will set it aside from competing ammunition. I am sure you will agree that velocity is a variable that is easily matched by a competitor, so we can exclude that. I would like a declaration that no Le Mas projectiles incorporate discrete components of any other ammunition being produced today.

The critical part of my post has arrived. I put it to you that the failure to demonstrate the properties of the Le Mas projectile in conventional laboratory testing does not absolve the manufacturer from conducting tests (or developing new tests if needs be) to consistently and scientifically quantify the properties of the projectile upon impact with the target, whether the 'ideal' target is specified as being tissue of a certain temperature or not. Basically you have to provide me details (assuming I was a potential buyer) of the ideal parameters of the use of this projectile and I have to be able to validate that with testing procedures on my own.

This may seem obvious to you, but in fact there is more to this than that simple statement. At present, the argument for the effectiveness of the Le Mas projectile is based on reported tests on hogs. In those tests (as far as I can tell, because I don't have data from the manufacturer detailing all the parameters of the test firings, which is not an unreasonable request) the terminal trajectories have involved multiple body areas on the hogs, and therefore there have multiple degrees of inhomogeneity (if I may put it so clumsily). There have been thoracic hits, hind quarter hits, mixed tissue densities and target thicknesses. Now, do you think it is unreasonable for an unbiased outsider such as myself to ask how the manufacturers can claim consistent results in these highly variable circumstances when Dr Vail and I have already declared that we have seen 'deviation' from the norm in the configuration of retrieved projectiles from human bodies and when we both agree that this is due to the inhomogeneity of the living target? I guess what I am saying to you all is that there must be at least some failures of the Le Mas projectiles, even when shot against living tissue of the required temperature, and the cause of these failures must surely be quantifiable and documented, preferably by non-destructive means. This holds true even if the manufacturer claims that the Le Mas projectile behaves like no other. One universal unshakeable factor is "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" and I want to know what the circumstances are when shooting living tissue, where I will not get a 'free lunch' with the Le Mas projectile. This is the starting point for determining how the projectile works.

For the purposes of describing the effects of the projectile upon impact against living tissue, and in the absence of a partially lucent material such as gel, what steps have the manufacturers taken to provide alternate imaging of the targets that were shot? There has been some mention of X-ray imaging. Are these images available for analysis? I would be interested in seeing those. What sort of controls have been put in place as a reference for that imaging? I have already suggested to Dr Vail some basic procedures I would put in place if this was my product or if I was attempting to demonstrate the effects of the product in a medium that does not lend itself to the same analysis as a lucent medium such as gel. If this truly is a revolutionary product, is it unreasonable to ask for pre and post X-ray imaging to document the distribution of projectile and bone fragments and is it unreasonable to ask for pre and post cross-sectional imaging to document tissue disruption? If I have been able to do ballistics-related CT scans on home-made jigs here in London as a radiographer, surely Dr Vail as a trauma surgeon must have the wherewithal to get scans of the target meat in question.
These questions are just related to the target testing of the Le Mas projectiles: I will get on to Mr Bulmer's advertising and marketing statements in due course (and Dr Vails's stance on those as a medical professional).

[Kyobanim]

Odd Job,

Welcome to the board. Please fill out your profile.

K

[The Reaper]

Odd Job:

Welcome to the board.

Some of what you are asking has already been answered by Dr. Vail and others here.

For example, he already stated the number of conventional rounds that he has seen that have failed to perform as intended.

Try doing a search of this site for "LeMas" or "BMT Ammunition" for additional information.

I am a soldier, not a ballistician or a physician, but I will tell you that in the hundres of rounds of LeMas I have fired, all have worked as intended and I have seen no failures except when rounds were completely defeated in hard armor. For example, in four counsecutive live tissue shots on caprines, every bullet functioned exactly the same way. The wounds produced look almost exactly like the ones from Dr. Vail's work and the LeMas promotional materials. I have seen the bullet function across a wide range of velocities, while I am sure that as with all expanding bullets, there is a threshold beyond which the bullet may not function to its full capability, I have not reached that in my experience.

As far as demanding declarations of composition, I am not sure why that would matter to you as long as the ammo works as claimed.

I would also disagree that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to provide a test medium other than ballistic gelatin. The test medium that it is currently performing as claimed in is the desired performance medium; i.e., live tissue. Your statement that the alternate media is a requirement to sell the ammunition may be a requirement for some countries, but terminal performance in live tissue is an entirely adequate demonstration for others.

Appreciate your well-thought out contribution to this discussion.

I wish that the prime detractor of this ammunition would step-up and post during one of his many visits to this site. balpro is Gary Roberts. He does a lot of reading here, but thus far, appears to prefer to let others make his arguments for him.

TR

[Gene Econ]

My only wish is that I am able to reach the appropriate people that have narrowed their mindset on the necessary properties of bullet wound formation: bullets are meant to kill; an injured patient or opponent is a mission failure.

SWAT Surgeon:

Excellent and clear comments. Thank you for taking the time as well.

If we are talking about the Army then wounding isn't considered a failure. The military has always gone for penetration of hard material at relatively long distances over terminal effects. Being able to punch holes through walls, steel, trees etc and then wound someone is better than allowing the guy to continue to shoot because the bullets couldn't get to him. Impossible to model so the Army goes with the BFFI concept. Probably more right than wrong.

BTW -- are there any independent tests of the Le Mas rifle ammo in terms of exterior ballistics? Got to hit the guy before the bullet can do its job.

Gene

[The Reaper]

Gene:

In my experience, given the right rifle and shooter, the LeMas rifle ammo holds better than 2 moa with all loads I tried, some have been under 1 moa.

APLP could better answer that as the vendor, I have seen his partner John make some impressive shots with it.

As far as your comment on wounding vs. killing, you are spot on. Incapacitation would be my word to describe the desired effect.

TR

[swatsurgeon]

Oddjob,
I will answer your questions in a little while...have a OR case to do in a minute.
Somehow the tangent is getting more play than the original intent:
The fact that the LeMas round tested in gel performed in a different way than in live tissue and the fact that the gel reports and the opinion of ballistics experts based on the gel tests have made it so difficult/impossible for this ammunition to have an opportunity for field testing. The gel was the "1st stop" on the road to further evaluation and by the reports generated, it "failed" to perform as advertised....but it didn't; it has completely different properties in tissue as compared to gel. This is the primary point I made. How many other types of ammunition that have been developed in the past, never made it past the gel block because of 'anemic' performance? The test can be valid for features of each round as I stated and clearly understand. If I was comparing a Hydroshok in 2 different calibers, etc.
I will get back to your questions in a few hours.
Thank you for your ability to question and reason what you know and have read.

TR: incapacitation is a better term...thank you.
ss

[Odd Job]

@ The Reaper

It is not so much the number of failures I am after, but the circumstances surrounding the failures. This will allow us to have an envelope of characteristic performance taking into account the type of tissue traversed and the configuration of the projectile. That envelope in turn allows us to specify the limitations of application. I would be curious to know what the terminal trajectory and final configuration of the projectile was in each of those cases. I am still very interesed in seeing the X-ray imaging as regards these tissue tests.

In terms of the components of the projectile, it would be necessary to know what they are so that the radiological density of the fragments can be used to determine which fragments went where. It would also be a step in the right direction to support the manufacturer's claims that the ammunition is unique. Tissue imaging and projectile analysis will support this, because obviously the radiological appearances of Dr Vail's tests will be different from those of a similar, competing brand. If your X-ray appearances are like nothing I've ever seen before, I am going to sit up and take notice, but I need to know what metals I am looking for.

I would also disagree that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to provide a test medium other than ballistic gelatin. The test medium that it is currently performing as claimed in is the desired performance medium; i.e., live tissue. Your statement that the alternate media is a requirement to sell the ammunition may be a requirement for some countries, but terminal performance in live tissue is an entirely adequate demonstration for others.

You misunderstood me. I am asking for alternate tests, not alternate media. Non-destructive documentation of the effects of the projectile are needed and this is not an unreasonable request. If your claim is that the projectile has performed hundreds of times with consistency in tissue, then it should be no problem to be able to document that radiologically. That is the only way I can think of arriving at data that is reproducible independently when gel testing is excluded. An autopsy is not a valid starting point for mapping the wounding capabilities of the projectile. It is destructive, does not allow for multiple planes of investigation and is dependent on the technique of the operator. Furthermore it does not provide a way to map the locations of all the projectile fragments within the subject (to check for consistency and configuration of fragment deposition in the wound).

It would clear up a lot of questions if Dr Vail would let me see some X-ray imaging of the damaged tissues, but I still maintain that some control-based study is needed to finally quantify the performance of the Le Mas bullet. One of the things that I suggested to Dr Vail was that he had pre and post imaging, temperature differential based studies to document what the effects of the projectile are in cold vs warm tissues. After all, if temperature is cited as one reason why the gel is not good for testing, why not shoot hogs at various temperatures? Would it not be in your favour to demonstrate failure of the round at low temperature? And would it not be quite easy to produce a sample of warm firings, with consistent radiological appearances, and a sample of cold firings, with consistent (but different) appearances?
You would then be able to say to the skeptics: "Here, these are our results. We shot 50 pig thighs at a warm temperature and here are the 3D reconstructions of the wound channels and here are the X-rays, all showing consistency of performance and demonstrating the wounding potential of these rounds in that tissue."
And then you could say "But look at the cold tissue. Here we have shot another 50 pigs, also through the thigh and the imaging proves that the internal damage is not the same as the warm samples. And we have CT Hounsfield measurements to document the density of all the tissues in the terminal trajectory in each case, so that you can see that we have used tissue blocks that are as 'uniform' as possible for the cold and warm tests."

[magician]

Brilliant thread.

Thank you, gentlemen.

[The Reaper]

Odd Job:

I understand your question on the failures. I have seen the rounds work on live tissue out to 225 meters from a 10.5" gun, and they functioned as designed. I have never seen a LeMas round overpenetrate and exit a live tissue target either. Given that there is a performance envelope for any rounds, that would be more than acceptable for me from that barrel length. I have not seen any out to failure. I would say that this is not directed at you personally, but the demands for ever more testing seem to increase all of the time. I suspect that if they were tied to a purchase agreement; i.e., if the rounds meet these performance criteria, we will purchase X number of rounds, that the testing requirements would be more palatable. Or if an impartial forensic pathologist acceptable to all parties had agreed to validate the rounds under a final set of protocols. Otherwise, it is an issue of bankrupting a company by requiring more and more tests, regardless of how well they performed in the previous ones. Kind of like the story about the produce imports in Japan sitting on the dock awaiting inspection till they will fail inspection. And as with any live tissue testing, we should not be requiring the deaths of more specimens than required for the value returned of new data.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with posting and examining the X-Rays, but I will defer to the experts on that. If I can get my hands on some, I will be more than happy to post them. We did not scan they ones we shot, but I am pretty sure that they are going to show a generally spherical deployment of tiny particles at varying distances away from the wound track. That is what the ones we shot showed. I too would love to see MRI or CT imaging with computer enhancement providing a three dimensional view of the deployment of the round in live tissue, better yet with a time line.

As far as identifying the specific composition of the bullet, I suspect that it is like asking for the formula for Coca-Cola. It would appear to be an industrial secrecy sort of thing. I am not a radiologist, but in my limited experience as a layman, any metallic particles will show up, though some metals have more density and are more radio-opaque than others.

If Gary Roberts were to engage Dr. Vail here directly in a professional discussion, he could possibly work out a set of protocols for further live tissue testing with X-Rays and any other desired use for the specimens.

For terminal ballistics, I do not care about the performance envelope in any tissue other than live tissue at any target temperature other than 98-105 degrees. In that range, the LeMas has performed beyond my expectations. IMHO, for shooting bad guys, there is no simulant for live tissue better than live tissue.

TR

[Team Sergeant]

You would then be able to say to the skeptics: "Here, these are our results. We shot 50 pig thighs at a warm temperature and here are the 3D reconstructions of the wound channels and here are the X-rays, all showing consistency of performance and demonstrating the wounding potential of these rounds in that tissue."


Odd Job,

So if I read this right you’re saying we should shoot the pigs in the “thighs”?? Are you suggesting we try to replicate ballistic gelatin performance in live tissue or vice versa?????

Let me help you out in the marksmanship department, when soldiers aim a weapon they aim to kill. That usually entails a shot to the thoracic cavity or cranium, not the thigh.

Team Sergeant

[Odd Job]

@ The Reaper

X-ray imaging is relatively inexpensive and I'm willing to bet that any trauma surgeon in good standing with his imaging department colleagues will be able to get it done with the minimum of fuss. CT scans with reconstructions is a different matter: the scans can be done quickly enough and without much planning, but he will need to get a friendly technologist to produce measurements and recons on the separate workstation.
In 2003 I conducted a similar test to what I propose Dr Vail does, but my test was to see whather I could determine certain forensic properties of a projectile that could not be removed from the patient. It involved plain films and CTs, but done in such a way that the meat was not handled or manipulated from one exam to the next. Here are some attached pictures, the first one showing a plain film setup and the second one showing a CT setup, in both cases mounted on a homemade jig (my design).

The plain film X-raying in my case was more complex than what Dr Vail needs because certain distances and equipment variables had to be documented before the exposure. However a setup like this for Dr Vail's pupose would allow dual plane imaging of a piece of meat within two minutes, even using conventional film processing. (Three plane imaging is possible if the metallic clamps are substituted for plastic ties). Plain film costs would be modest: you need several boxes of film costing a few hundred dollars and then you need to pay an X-ray technologist/radiographer a day's wage to X-ray those in two planes. Even if you were paying him the top end of an agency scale for radiography, the amount would be somewhere around $350. It would certainly be a lot less than Dr Vail could charge for private consulting ;)
CTs: you would be able to scan all your blocks within one afternoon, provided you had them all on a trolley with dowel rods already in situ. The X-ray tech fee might be a bit more (or it might be a lot less depending on Dr Vail's contacts) but there would be no film costs. They would burn those images onto DICOM discs as a record and export the studies to the 3D workstation for manipulation. By the time you had the CTs you would be able to work out whether there was sufficient consistency to warrant producing 3D wound tracks, or not. So I guess what I'm telling you is that the imaging is not that expensive. Nobody helped me financially when I did my research involving this imaging and I am but one man.

The second issue is to do with the composition of the Le Mas bullets and the comparison to the formula for Coca-Cola.
Well, that is not an accurate analogy because if necessary the Le Mas projectiles could be dismantled and subjected to any number of metallurgical analytical testing and the components would be found. It would however be a matter of good faith for the company to just tell us in the first place what the components are. This is not the same as asking for the technique by which they are made. It is just a matter of courtesy and it is needed for the X-ray analysis. For example in the days when Winchester was making 7.65mm Silvertips with aluminium jacketing, any test like this would have been conducted with the premise that this jacketing would be radiolucent. In a similar vein, with regards to the lead content in a projectile, clinicians may be interested at a later stage to know whether a projectile may pose a plumbism risk in certain circumstances. There are aspects to do with radiological density and projectile recognition too.

I cannot entertain further claims that the components are a secret. If this was a new hair dye or a cooking recipe I would understand but that clearly is not the case.

[The Reaper]

@ The Reaper

X-ray imaging is relatively inexpensive and I'm willing to bet that any trauma surgeon in good standing with his imaging department colleagues will be able to get it done with the minimum of fuss. CT scans with reconstructions is a different matter: the scans can be done quickly enough and without much planning, but he will need to get a friendly technologist to produce measurements and recons on the separate workstation.
In 2003 I conducted a similar test to what I propose Dr Vail does, but my test was to see whather I could determine certain forensic properties of a projectile that could not be removed from the patient. It involved plain films and CTs, but done in such a way that the meat was not handled or manipulated from one exam to the next. Here are some attached pictures, the first one showing a plain film setup and the second one showing a CT setup, in both cases mounted on a homemade jig (my design).

The plain film X-raying in my case was more complex than what Dr Vail needs because certain distances and equipment variables had to be documented before the exposure. However a setup like this for Dr Vail's pupose would allow dual plane imaging of a piece of meat within two minutes, even using conventional film processing. (Three plane imaging is possible if the metallic clamps are substituted for plastic ties). Plain film costs would be modest: you need several boxes of film costing a few hundred dollars and then you need to pay an X-ray technologist/radiographer a day's wage to X-ray those in two planes. Even if you were paying him the top end of an agency scale for radiography, the amount would be somewhere around $350. It would certainly be a lot less than Dr Vail could charge for private consulting ;)
CTs: you would be able to scan all your blocks within one afternoon, provided you had them all on a trolley with dowel rods already in situ. The X-ray tech fee might be a bit more (or it might be a lot less depending on Dr Vail's contacts) but there would be no film costs. They would burn those images onto DICOM discs as a record and export the studies to the 3D workstation for manipulation. By the time you had the CTs you would be able to work out whether there was sufficient consistency to warrant producing 3D wound tracks, or not. So I guess what I'm telling you is that the imaging is not that expensive. Nobody helped me financially when I did my research involving this imaging and I am but one man.

The second issue is to do with the composition of the Le Mas bullets and the comparison to the formula for Coca-Cola.
Well, that is not an accurate analogy because if necessary the Le Mas projectiles could be dismantled and subjected to any number of metallurgical analytical testing and the components would be found. It would however be a matter of good faith for the company to just tell us in the first place what the components are. This is not the same as asking for the technique by which they are made. It is just a matter of courtesy and it is needed for the X-ray analysis. For example in the days when Winchester was making 7.65mm Silvertips with aluminium jacketing, any test like this would have been conducted with the premise that this jacketing would be radiolucent. In a similar vein, with regards to the lead content in a projectile, clinicians may be interested at a later stage to know whether a projectile may pose a plumbism risk in certain circumstances. There are aspects to do with radiological density and projectile recognition too.

I cannot entertain further claims that the components are a secret. If this was a new hair dye or a cooking recipe I would understand but that clearly is not the case.

OJ:

Agreed on the utility of the X-Rays, though wheeling a dead hog or 20 into the Radiology Department might raise a few eyebrows.

If not knowing what the bullets are made of is a show stopper for you, and LeMas does not wish to share that info, they cannot be forced to, so I guess that this is the end of the line for your participation.

As far as concerns of plumbism, I think that ballistic lead poisoning is almost always harmful. Over the long term, I would have to ask a physician how the body treats embedded objects. I would think that would not be a concern at this stage of testing, as the standard issue M855 and Mk 262 bullets have lead cores, so if it were possible to survive a hit from the the LeMas, any fragments remaining would be treated like any other bullet fragments.

If you cannot entertain the failure to provide the composition of the bullets, sorry that you feel that strongly about it, Sir, enjoyed the informed discussion up to this point.

If you still want to see the X-Rays, let me know so that I do not waste my time looking for them.

TR

[Odd Job]

@ The Reaper

I seem to have trouble posting images, the images did not appear in that post. I will try here again...

As far as concerns of plumbism, I think that ballistic lead poisoning is almost always harmful. Over the long term, I would have to ask a physician how the body treats embedded objects.

This was just a side note, not essential to our discussion, but I can tell you without the need of a physician that synovial fluid is the only substance in the human body that can dissolve lead, and so the presence of lead within joint capsules is a plumbism risk. Cases are rare, but deaths have occurred. It has been my experience that surgeons will only seek to make a projectile retrieval the primary aim of an operation if it poses a chemical or mechanical hazard to the patient, or in some cases if its continued presence promotes unusual emotional stress on the patient. I was just mentioning this as a sundry reason why it may be useful to know the material composition of certain ammunition. Another reason might be to identify ferromagnetic risks in todays world where every second person is having an MRI scan.

I am still interested in the X-rays, yes please.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/PlainFilmMeat.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/PlainFilmCT.jpg

[The Reaper]

You can post a max of five photos per individual post, as long as they are an approved file type and do not exceed 800x600. Just click on the Manage Attachments button below and follow the cues. No need for a host server, they will upload fine here.

Nice fixture, what is that, a canned ham in the photo?

It may take me a while to locate the X-Rays, I will post them as soon as I can find them.

TR

[Odd Job]

@ TS

So if I read this right you’re saying we should shoot the pigs in the “thighs”?? Are you suggesting we try to replicate ballistic gelatin performance in live tissue or vice versa?????

Well the premise of this debate is that the performance of the Le Mas projectile cannot be realised in ballistic gelatin, but only in living tissue. I would like to see testing of this ammunition in as 'homogenous' a section of living tissue as possible. That's why I suggested the thigh rather than the thorax or head because those structures involve a high probability of a mixed tissue/bone strike.

Let me help you out in the marksmanship department, when soldiers aim a weapon they aim to kill. That usually entails a shot to the thoracic cavity or cranium, not the thigh.

:rolleyes:

I am not here asking for help in the marksmanship department, thank-you, but if I struggle with some of the concepts of shot placement at any point in my civilian existence, I will be sure to contact you immediately. Perhaps you could be a little less abrasive and a little more focussed on the debate at hand. This isn't about shot placment it is about finding a portion of tissue that can be used to produce the most consistent results possible, such as consistency can be mentioned with regards to live tissues. I certainly wouldn't expect objections at this stage of the debate about shot placement in the hogs for the purpose of testing...unless you are now stipulating that these bullets can only be tested in the thorax and cranium?

[Odd Job]

@ The Reaper

I cannot get the internal attachments to work, they work for me on other sites, must be a config problem on my side.

That is indeed a large tinned corned beef into which I inserted by hand various projectiles that had been fired previously into a water tank at a ballistics lab in SA. Here is the plain radiograph (just a section):

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/RadiographLateral.jpg

And here is a CT slice that I viewed right here on my home PC from the hospital DICOM CD. There is viewing software on the CD that works with any PC, that is the standard in distributed cross-sectional imaging these days:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/DicomSliceCT.jpg

The only additions are the black annotations.

[The Reaper]

Nice radiology work.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

@ TS



Well the premise of this debate is that the performance of the Le Mas projectile cannot be realised in ballistic gelatin, but only in living tissue. I would like to see testing of this ammunition in as 'homogenous' a section of living tissue as possible. That's why I suggested the thigh rather than the thorax or head because those structures involve a high probability of a mixed tissue/bone strike.



:rolleyes:

I am not here asking for help in the marksmanship department, thank-you, but if I struggle with some of the concepts of shot placement at any point in my civilian existence, I will be sure to contact you immediately. Perhaps you could be a little less abrasive and a little more focussed on the debate at hand. This isn't about shot placment it is about finding a portion of tissue that can be used to produce the most consistent results possible, such as consistency can be mentioned with regards to live tissues. I certainly wouldn't expect objections at this stage of the debate about shot placement in the hogs for the purpose of testing...unless you are now stipulating that these bullets can only be tested in the thorax and cranium?
There is a fine line between a lively discussion and being a smart ass here. That line tends to shift depending on whom the 2nd party in the discussion is when it comes to guests. It is hard to see, so let me help you; you are standing right on top of it.

The TS is not abrasive, that is simply a collateral benefit of the steel from which he was forged - and one of his most endearing characteristics.

One of the reasons that I don't particularly care for gelatin as a medium is that I don't shoot people in the thigh, that is the point the TS is making. I agree that your idea would be interesting to see and if gelatin and thigh is a closest match; for the cost of a box of ammo, well worth doing as part of any test.

I personally would be much more interested in seeing the results of a test with penetration of the ethmoid and zygomatic bones, followed by cornea, pupil, vitreous and lens, followed by the frontal, temporal and occipital lobes.

Or the results of thoracic shot placement on internal organs.

Human, not sus scrofa

[Odd Job]

@ NDD

There is a fine line between a lively discussion and being a smart ass here. That line tends to shift depending on whom the 2nd party in the discussion is when it comes to guests. It is hard to see, so let me help you; you are standing right on top of it.

I always start a conversation in a civil, professional manner. If someone chooses to be condescending or abrasive then he will get the same back from me. If you call that being a smartass, well then TS made me a smartass. I am not some kid that has been left on TS's front lawn for him to baby sit, I am a professional and I put great courtesy and effort into these posts. If you don't like how I responded to him, that's tough doodoo. He should have addressed me on equal terms in the first instance.

The TS is not abrasive, that is simply a collateral benefit of the steel from which he was forged - and one of his most endearing characteristics.

Well by the same token, I am not a smartass, that is just collateral benefit of my natural tendency to be endearing in turn.

One of the reasons that I don't particularly care for gelatin as a medium is that I don't shoot people in the thigh, that is the point the TS is making.

I don't follow you there. As far as I can tell, neither the TS nor I have made any such link between thigh tissue and gelatin for the purposes of these tests.

I personally would be much more interested in seeing the results of a test with penetration of the ethmoid and zygomatic bones, followed by cornea, pupil, vitreous and lens, followed by the frontal, temporal and occipital lobes.

If there was ever one part of the body that would produce the most variation in shot to shot terminal trajectories, it is the facial bones. It is quite common to find angled trajectories because of facial bone deflection. I have many cases in my research that illustrate this, in fact one of them involves a trajectory that started at the mandibular head, suffered an inferior trajectory change to the lung apex, passed through the diaphragm and lodged in the liver. A gunshot face and head is of no value in establishing a baseline or a control for the documentation of a projectile's performance.
As an aside, because I see 'Doc' in your title, how many shots have you ever seen that involve the zygoma, ethmoid bone, eye and occipital lobe? I'm curious because in my experience I have only ever seen one fractured zygoma, and in that case the bullet fractured the temporal bone too but nothing else. The trajectory that you suggest above is impossible with a standard projectile, as it does a loop and a 90 degree trajectory change.
Okay here is an actual case from file, where a guy sustained a gunshot in the region of the glabella (between the eyes, above the bridge of the nose). He actually sustained no brain injury because the bullet was deflected by the bones of the left maxillary sinus. The bullet was deflected inferiorly and broke several of the victims teeth. The red arrow points to blood and daughter projectile fragments lodged in the maxillary sinus on the left.
The green trajectory is your proposed interesting test trajectory. I've plotted it as generously as possible, but as you can see it is a highly unlikely trajectory. Note that the trajectory would have to have a superior then inferior angle in the region of the temporal lobe, in order for it to work.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/CTFacial.jpg

[NousDefionsDoc]

All well and good, the difference is you are a guest here and he isn't. You want to make the rules, start your own discussion forum and when I come to visit as a guest, I will either follow them or you can call me on it. Or ban me.

I don't follow you there. As far as I can tell, neither the TS nor I have made any such link between thigh tissue and gelatin for the purposes of these tests.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I read somewhere that gelatin resistance most closely matched thigh tissue resistance. If that is not the case I am mistaken - it happens.

A gunshot face and head is of no value in establishing a baseline or a control for the documentation of a projectile's performance.
When I shoot people in the face, my objective is not to establish a baseline for the documentation of a projectile's performance. I would just like to see the results as that is usually where I place my shots.
As an aside, because I see 'Doc' in your title, how many shots have you ever seen that involve the zygoma, ethmoid bone, eye and occipital lobe? I'm curious because in my experience I have only ever seen one fractured zygoma, and in that case the bullet fractured the temporal bone too but nothing else. The trajectory that you suggest above is impossible with a standard projectile, as it does a loop and a 90 degree trajectory change.
Difficult with one. Not two. I never shoot just one.

I am not a ballistics expert. I simply stated the test I would like to see according to the shot placement I teach my Little People to use. I realize I probably won't get to see it.

[swatsurgeon]

I have the actual x-ray films and will make digital photos tomorrow and will post them.

ss

BTW, I have also stated that thigh shots are a true minority and that the basis of gel being a simulated shot to the thigh is again inaccurate as we have discussed. There is no homogeneous part of the body: no where is it devoid of skin, suncutaneous tissue, fascia, and bone. My outside guess is that less than 2% of all extremity wounds are along the long axis of the thigh...not many people shot lying down. Just a fact of real world shootings.

[The Reaper]

Odd Job:

You are a guest here, seem to be an educated individual, and I am trying to treat you as such.

At the same time, this is a board for Special Forces personnel. I do not believe that you have passed that test. Till then, you are a guest here.

Team Sergeant is a retired SF soldier and is one of the founders of this board. As such, he has considerable lattitude in what he can say here. There has been no name calling, picture posting, personal attacks, or particular rudeness here since early in the thread. He made an observation and a simple answer as to why the thigh would be the prefered tissue area to impact would have been sufficient. His wife is an experienced trauma surgeon at a major metropolitan medical center and can translate for him if necessary.

I would avoid getting into a pissing contest with him, as I am finding the discussion stimulating and it will be more difficult if you are not here to post, but you do as you see fit.

NDD is a former teammate of mine, a Special Forces medical sergeant, a combat veteran, and is currently employed as a contractor in what has been called one of the most dangerous places on Earth. He knows things. Trust me.

TR

[Team Sergeant]

@ NDD



I always start a conversation in a civil, professional manner. If someone chooses to be condescending or abrasive then he will get the same back from me. If you call that being a smartass, well then TS made me a smartass. I am not some kid that has been left on TS's front lawn for him to baby sit, I am a professional and I put great courtesy and effort into these posts. If you don't like how I responded to him, that's tough doodoo. He should have addressed me on equal terms in the first instance.



Well by the same token, I am not a smartass, that is just collateral benefit of my natural tendency to be endearing in turn.



I don't follow you there. As far as I can tell, neither the TS nor I have made any such link between thigh tissue and gelatin for the purposes of these tests.



If there was ever one part of the body that would produce the most variation in shot to shot terminal trajectories, it is the facial bones. It is quite common to find angled trajectories because of facial bone deflection. I have many cases in my research that illustrate this, in fact one of them involves a trajectory that started at the mandibular head, suffered an inferior trajectory change to the lung apex, passed through the diaphragm and lodged in the liver. A gunshot face and head is of no value in establishing a baseline or a control for the documentation of a projectile's performance.
As an aside, because I see 'Doc' in your title, how many shots have you ever seen that involve the zygoma, ethmoid bone, eye and occipital lobe? I'm curious because in my experience I have only ever seen one fractured zygoma, and in that case the bullet fractured the temporal bone too but nothing else. The trajectory that you suggest above is impossible with a standard projectile, as it does a loop and a 90 degree trajectory change.
Okay here is an actual case from file, where a guy sustained a gunshot in the region of the glabella (between the eyes, above the bridge of the nose). He actually sustained no brain injury because the bullet was deflected by the bones of the left maxillary sinus. The bullet was deflected inferiorly and broke several of the victims teeth. The red arrow points to blood and daughter projectile fragments lodged in the maxillary sinus on the left.
The green trajectory is your proposed interesting test trajectory. I've plotted it as generously as possible, but as you can see it is a highly unlikely trajectory. Note that the trajectory would have to have a superior then inferior angle in the region of the temporal lobe, in order for it to work.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/CTFacial.jpg


If what I wrote offends your delicate sensibilities I suggest you return to your crowd of tacticalchildren.com forums for a group hug.

We have Ivy League professors, attorneys, physicians, dentists, Sergeant Majors, Generals, etc and we get along just fine.

Grow a thicker skin or leave.

Mention me one more time and you will be a memory.

Team Sergeant

[APLP]

@ NDD
If there was ever one part of the body that would produce the most variation in shot to shot terminal trajectories, it is the facial bones. It is quite common to find angled trajectories because of facial bone deflection. I have many cases in my research that illustrate this, in fact one of them involves a trajectory that started at the mandibular head, suffered an inferior trajectory change to the lung apex, passed through the diaphragm and lodged in the liver. A gunshot face and head is of no value in establishing a baseline or a control for the documentation of a projectile's performance.
As an aside, because I see 'Doc' in your title, how many shots have you ever seen that involve the zygoma, ethmoid bone, eye and occipital lobe? I'm curious because in my experience I have only ever seen one fractured zygoma, and in that case the bullet fractured the temporal bone too but nothing else. The trajectory that you suggest above is impossible with a standard projectile, as it does a loop and a 90 degree trajectory change.
Okay here is an actual case from file, where a guy sustained a gunshot in the region of the glabella (between the eyes, above the bridge of the nose). He actually sustained no brain injury because the bullet was deflected by the bones of the left maxillary sinus. The bullet was deflected inferiorly and broke several of the victims teeth. The red arrow points to blood and daughter projectile fragments lodged in the maxillary sinus on the left.
The green trajectory is your proposed interesting test trajectory. I've plotted it as generously as possible, but as you can see it is a highly unlikely trajectory. Note that the trajectory would have to have a superior then inferior angle in the region of the temporal lobe, in order for it to work.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/CTFacial.jpg

Odd Job, I would be happy to take that shot for you. I will do my best to locate historical hog data which approximates the bullet impact trajectory you illustrate below, however the end results will not very much from what can be seen below from the performance of the Le Mas 45acp Armor Piercing CQB bullet with the slight variation that live hog skull impacts often fully displace both eyeballs to the limits of remaining connective tissues.

[Odd Job]

@ The Reaper and TS

I always start a discussion in a gentlemanly and civil manner. It doesn't matter where I am, that is the way I conduct myself. I didn't ask anybody here for his background, and nobody here knows mine. What I have done in SA and what you have done on the battlefield has got nothing to do with how you deport yourself on a public internet forum. If one of you signs up on a radiology forum that I frequent, he gets the same respect as any other member, I don't tell him that because I am a long standing member I can be condescending and address him however I like. He arrives there with the respect that is due to him, and he retains it until proven otherwise.

Now let me make this quite clear. If I was actually serving in one of your units as a junior, or if I was in a boarding school then I would be subject to this discrepency in how I am treated. But I am not, am I? This is a forum, gentlemen, an internet forum: I am here in London and you have absolutely no say in what I do in life. I have expertise and you have expertise. We have different expertise and we are not each other's masters. How you treat me is how I will treat you.
If you don't like it, tough.

[Team Sergeant]

Now let me make this quite clear. If I was actually serving in one of your units as a junior, or if I was in a boarding school then I would be subject to this discrepency in how I am treated. But I am not, am I? This is a forum, gentlemen, an internet forum: I am here in London and you have absolutely no say in what I do in life. I have expertise and you have expertise. We have different expertise and we are not each other's masters. How you treat me is how I will treat you.
If you don't like it, tough.

LOL,
Loud and clear Odd Job.

"If one of you signs up on a radiology forum that I frequent" I don't think that likely in this life time but I'll bear that in mind.;)

Please continue.....OJ.

TS

[NousDefionsDoc]

Odd Job,
While pretty , your x-ray drawing does not reflect my shot wish list. I went back and checked the anatomy again, as it has been a while. I can indeed do it with one and it wouldn't be at all difficult. But at least you made me get out the A&P book again.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, do you have anything that proves or even suggests that LeMas ammo does not perform as claimed in tissue?

In your original post, you quite accurately pointed out two separate questions.

1. I don't believe anybody here has said that gelatin is useless as a test medium, unless jokingly. It is just not the end all - be all of testing mediums. Unless of course that is the target you will be using on a daily basis. I don't look for the round that performs best on paper either. Since we will be shooting tissue, is tissue not a viable test medium for us? Since when did the medium become the test?

2. And then the performance of LeMas ammunition. Here on this board we have a report by a Trauma Surgeon regarding the performance of LeMas on tissue. So I ask again, does anybody have any proof that LeMas does not perform as stated in tissue?

I was thinking back, I have never heard any of the proponents state that it will do this in gelatine. And I have never seen the detractors state that it does not perform as stated on tissue. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just that I have never seen it.

All I have ever seen is "You can't replicate those results in gelatine, so it is useless!" Given a choice between no results in gelatin and the results shown in the report and others I have seen, I will not discount this ammunition for combat use. Of course I will need to use it myself before deciding.

So if you have information regarding a test on LeMas in tissue that shows different results than those of SWAT Doc, please post it. Or if you know of anybody that does, please ask them to come forward. Because at the end of the day, that is what this report and thread are really all about - the performance of LeMas ammunition in tissue as witnessed by a trauma surgeon.

It is not about English X-ray Techs and Old SF Medics. And it is not about LeMas ammunition in gelatin as a testing medium. If you feel the need to discuss the latter two, we can start other threads.

Awaiting results of a test disproving the results of SWAT's report - on tissue.

[TheRealChuck]

Gentlemen,

This has turned into a good discussion.

Here are some statements that Stan made to me while discussing blistering observed in some test shoots:

"If you can identify the unique blistering when you pull these pictures up, you will see something no other ammunition technology can create"

and later in the same paragraph,

"I just wanted to see if you can find the unique signatures of these bullet deployments after I reread you posting on Tactical Forums concerning what you understood to be the absurdity of thermal dynamics."

Other Doctors (I believe it was Dr. Roberts) have stated that these "signatures" are not unique to LeMas but occur with other high velocity projectile wounds.

Additionally, the first video produced by LeMas shows high speed photography of the bullets penetrating steel. Then it zooms to a closeup of what appears to be flames at the point of impact. There is an implication there and there have been consistent issues and theories that the bullets perform differently in live, warm meat, versus cold gelatin.

What follows is an email exchange I had with Stan some time ago, and I have found nothing to change my opinions:


Please note that the discussion moves away from the bullet design to one of theory; i.e., light bullets pushed to high velocities, versus "currently procured duty ammunition."

And finally,

Dr. Roberts posted this recently; it is an enlightening scientific read and for the most part is a repost of information posted earlier. I do not profess to speak for him, but this has been debated and discussed to death. Real responses have not been made.

tacticalforums.com/


Chuck



Chuck,
That email is between you and Stan, not the world. Also I've no idea who you are or your experience level. While you are welcome to post please refrain from posting on this thread, we are waiting for Dr Roberts to speak for himself. I'm sure he does not require third party hearsay posted on his behalf.

Also no more hot linking to forums run by civilians that have zero tactical experience. I will no longer allow the hot links.

Team Sergeant

[NousDefionsDoc]

Thank you Chuck. Interesting, but still doesn't answer the question.

Do you know if Mr. Roberts has performed testing on tissue using LeMas ammunition? If so, can you provide a link to the results please?

[TheRealChuck]

TS: When I originally had that exchange, I told Stan I might post my part of the email; it was relevant. I thought his answers were also relevant, and there was nothing private about it. But this is your house and your rules. I might add that it seems like you are stacking the cards in favor of Stan and LeMas. My experience includes a very finely tuned BS detector, which is pegged in the red. Also, I checked your policy on linking prior to posting the link, which has since been changed. I think it's sad that you have the opinion that only SF experience counts as "tactical." There is a lot of tactical experience on that other forum, whether or not you like the owner's comments.

NousDefionsDoc: To my knowledge, the answer is no. But some of the analysis indicates that conventional varmint bullets are being used by LeMas and pushed to high velocities. Again, this raises the fiduciary motivation for clouding the issues and would establishes that LeMas is nothing special (especially since a hole has been blown in the "blended metal" facade). So the issue becomes should DOD/DA move away from conventional 5.56 loadings, lighten the round and up the velocity? There is nothing proprietary about that., it is merely a paradigm shift. It's all packaging and marketing.

Chuck

[Team Sergeant]

TS: When I originally had that exchange, I told Stan I might post my part of the email; it was relevant. I thought his answers were also relevant, and there was nothing private about it. But this is your house and your rules. I might add that it seems like you are stacking the cards in favor of Stan and LeMas. My experience includes a very finely tuned BS detector, which is pegged in the red. Also, I checked your policy on linking prior to posting the link, which has since been changed. I think it's sad that you have the opinion that only SF experience counts as "tactical." There is a lot of tactical experience on that other forum, whether or not you like the owner's comments.


Chuck

Chuck,
Read your own post. You could be Dr. Roberts dental assistant for all we know. We are not going to throw eggs but wait for Dr. Roberts to answer for himself. Stan is also here watching.
Save your third person comments for the other forums. You think we are stacking the deck,well as soon as Dr. Roberts posts we will stand down and allow him to take center stage. The forum will be all his (and Stans, Dr. Vail's), with questions from "vetted" professionals, DEA, FBI, FAM's SF'ers, SEALS, etc.

You know where to email me for further discussion.

TS

[APLP]

Chuck[/QUOTE]

Chuck, that private e-mail took place quite a long time ago, probably in excess of two years ago, am I correct? I do not take offense to the material you posted however you stretched the rationalized time frame a bit. I still believe much of the subject matter you quoted to be correct.

Although conventional high velocity thoracic rifle bullet impacts can show the lung surface bubbling you referenced the Le Mas rifle round signatures are much more prolific in different ways with respect to location and dimension.

In addition, there are no ballistic gelatin 12-18 inch compliant handgun hollow point bullet designs which also create that type of signature. The Le Mas armor piercing handgun ammunition is designed to function from current duty weapon platforms, if you can find any currently available off the shelf handgun that can fire the 147 grain gold dot at 2,000+ fps, please feel free to post thoracic cavity live tissue impacts that duplicate such lung tissue signatures. The recorded thoracic cavity tissue destruction for the Le Mas 9mm AP bullet contained in Dr. Vail's report was fired from a stock Glock-17.


Mr. Roberts reported 18.1 inches of penetration depth in denim clad calibrated 10%ballistic gelatin with a recovered bullet core that showed no expansion. Mr. Roberts further stated in his published report that the Le Mas 9mm AP bullet created less tissue destruction than any conventional hollow point bullet yet provides no actual living tissue data which documents his statement.

Dr. Vail provided actual living tissue data for the Le Mas 9mm AP bullet.

What part of the documented performance for the Le Mas 9mm Ap bullet when impacting living tissue do you not understand?

[TheRealChuck]

Team Sergeant, I have emailed you the means to "vet" that I am exactly who and what I say I am and not Dr. Roberts dental assistant.

Chuck

[Team Sergeant]

Team Sergeant, I have emailed you the means to "vet" that I am exactly who and what I say I am and not Dr. Roberts dental assistant.

Chuck


I really didn't think you were a dental assistant;) Just a figure of speech.:D

TS

[TheRealChuck]

Team Sergeant: Roger!

Stan:

Has it been that long? I just checked and you are correct, our email exchange took place in Jan 2004. I did not "stretch the rationalized time frame." The material was correct and in your own words, and I have seen nothing to indicate that your position as it pertains to any of the information you provided me had changed. This is not a new discussion. As you have just confirmed, it has been going on for over two years on various forums to include AR-15, Lightfighter, and TacticalForums.

As I stated previously, a 90 grain BMT round compared to a 147 grain JHP, is not an accurate comparison. Our email conversation does not indicate it, but unless I am mistaken, your video compared a 185 grain speer Golddot with a 90 grain BMT. If LeMas is somehow different, then the correct comparison is a 90 grain BMT round against a conventional 90 grain JHP fired at the same velocities! Otherwise, this goes back to nothing more than an argument over ballistics paradigms, heavy slow with deep penetration vs. fast light with large temporary cavities (and with sufficient velocity, tissue fragmentation).

If the paradigm is so effective, then any ammunition manufacturer can load a 90 grain bullet in a .40 (or 9mm), load it hot and achieve similar results.

NousDefionsDoc: I have no knowledge of animal testing other than those mentioned here. I do not believe any other live animal testing has been done. I would be interested to see a scientifically conducted test, following established protocols, too.

Chuck

[NousDefionsDoc]

Roger Chuck. I wasn't ignoring you, just watching.

[APLP]

Team Sergeant: Roger!

Stan:

Has it been that long? I just checked and you are correct, our email exchange took place in Jan 2004. I did not "stretch the rationalized time frame." The material was correct and in your own words, and I have seen nothing to indicate that your position as it pertains to any of the information you provided me had changed. This is not a new discussion. As you have just confirmed, it has been going on for over two years on various forums to include AR-15, Lightfighter, and TacticalForums.

As I stated previously, a 90 grain BMT round compared to a 147 grain JHP, is not an accurate comparison. Our email conversation does not indicate it, but unless I am mistaken, your video compared a 185 grain speer Golddot with a 90 grain BMT. If LeMas is somehow different, then the correct comparison is a 90 grain BMT round against a conventional 90 grain JHP fired at the same velocities! Otherwise, this goes back to nothing more than an argument over ballistics paradigms, heavy slow with deep penetration vs. fast light with large temporary cavities (and with sufficient velocity, tissue fragmentation).

If the paradigm is so effective, then any ammunition manufacturer can load a 90 grain bullet in a .40 (or 9mm), load it hot and achieve similar results.

NousDefionsDoc: I have no knowledge of animal testing other than those mentioned here. I do not believe any other live animal testing has been done. I would be interested to see a scientifically conducted test, following established protocols, too.

Chuck

Hey Chuck,

I was also looking forward to your response to the Le Mas 9mm AP gelatin data provided by Mr. Roberts, and the Dr. Vail documented performance for the same round in living tissue. Please elaborate how you believe a "conventional lead bullet construction" for the high velocity light weight Le Mas 9mm AP bullet can behave one way in gelatin and another in living tissue.

This issue I reference is very signifigant as you postulate that any projectile per bullet caliber design pushed at the same velocity as the Le Mas 9mm AP bullet would create the same living tissue destruction. But what I really want to know is if you also believe that same gold dot bullet fired at 2,000+ fps will also demonstrate no bullet core expansion and 18 inches of penetration into ballistic gelatin? If so please explain your rationale for that.

I would further like you to explain why the Le Mas high speed light weight 9mm AP bullet which penetrated hard 3A armor and then gelatin also did not demonstrate any bullet core expansion as per Mr. Roberts report.

And lastly I would like to know according to your implied ballistic theory why the same Le Mas 9mm AP bullet which penetrated 18.1 inches of denim clad ballistic gelatin human muscle tissue simulant is not capable of over penetrating either a 150 pound 6 inch thick rear hog appendage or 4 pound chunck of raw meat.

As for repeatability for performance in living tissue, I assure you that the performance of this bullet has been repeated for SME medical personnel hundreds of times in controlled environments. Did Mr. Roberts not tell you this, or did he not know this fact.

[Peregrino]

I've been following this discussion from the beginning. Despite a few forays it has remained remarkably civil and intelligent/informative compared to the usual internet hyperbole and acrimony. What I don't understand is "what are we arguing about?" The ONLY things that I want to know about any ammunition are - "Does it perform as advertised in living flesh?" and "Is it safe to fire in modern weapons in good working order?" LeMas claims that their ammo does indeed perform as advertised in tissue and that it is safe to use in modern firearms in good working order. I have personally never seen or heard anything that would lead me to doubt those issues. In the 2 1/2 years that I've been following this debate I've spoken to a number of trusted eyewitnesses and seen lots of graphic videos that support the first claim (performance in living tissue) and I've personally witnessed range firing where I inspected the weapons used and was unable to detect any damage to the firearm after shooting as much ammo as was available (leading me to believe it's safe to shoot).

Every detractor of the LeMas ammo has concentrated on the round's performance in gelatin, a medium that LeMas has never (to the best of my knowledge) claimed would extract optimum performance. (Personally I've never been attacked by a block of gelatin so it's not one of my primary concerns.) I understand why the "scientific" community prefers to use calibrated ballistic gelatin as a test media. I have no problems with that practice - AS FAR AS IT GOES. I'll even admit that it has contributed to advances in ballistics research and development. However when there appears to be a significant disparity in results between a test media and live tissue, perhaps it's time to look "outside the box". Searching for a different model to explain the disparity does not invalidate the body of work done in gelatin, nor is it an attack on the persons of gelatin advocates. True scientists should be helping to expand the sphere on human knowledge, not viciously attacking "heretics" who challenge dogma.

The second tactic of the LeMas detractors is to dismiss the tissue results as "typical of lightweight, high velocity cartridges e.g. varmit rounds". Absolutely true - except as TR already pointed out most varmit rounds (I shoot 40/50 gr Sierra Blitzkings at 3400/3200 fps) have thin jackets and tend to "blow apart" at shallow depths. Makes for spectacular groundhog/jackrabbit hunting but I personally find it objectionable against heavier game. Suggesting a heads up comparison of similar bullet weight and velocity is valid but it's not the point. The point is LeMas is suggesting a paradigm shift (away from standard weights/velocities, conventional wisdom, towards his ammo). Nobody else appears to be suggesting this approach - none of the major manufacturers have (even the ones whose bullets other internet sites are claiming LeMas is "rebranding"). To support his assertion that his approach is the better one - the test has to be between what we use now and what he wants to sell us. I don't know about the metalurgy claims made by either side of this argument. As far as I'm concerned they can be BMT, conventional lead core/gilding metal jacket, or unobtanium, it doesn't matter if they perform in flesh as advertised. It's apples and oranges. LeMas says oranges are better while the gelatin crowd insists that oranges must be tested and proven to perform according to apple standards. Labeling it "Snake Oil" and dismissing it out of hand as marketing hyperbole does nothing to advance knowledge or performance. (Even the FDA acknowledges the necessity for human testing.)

I've weighed in on this argument because I'm a retired soldier. I have personal reasons to want our troops to have the most effective ammunition/equipment possible. Although I didn't participate in the current unpleasantness, I do have some combat experience. I also have a brother with four tours in the sandbox and many good friends who have paid recent/multiple dues over there. These are all people on the cutting edge; they depend on their weapons and ammo for their lives as well as mission accomplishment. Complaints about the efficacy of our current ammo have been growing and getting louder for years. The proposed solutions (e.g. the 6.8 debate) all have their proponents/opponents and the debates are particularly acrimonious (there's that word again; BTW - it means too blinded by prejudice to engage in civilized discourse or explore alternatives). If the LeMas rounds perform as advertised they represent a quantum leap in lethality (that's what soldiers do - they kill people and try to stay alive while doing it) that does not require the expense/difficulty of fielding a new weapons system. I get pissed about the entrenched position of the naysayers because they are preventing an unbiased examination of the ammunition. If it doesn't perform as advertised, so be it. I'll shut up and sit down. If it does do what LeMas claims, can/will the opponents do the same? Bottom line - The money to conduct open minded testing of the LeMas ammo in an appropriate media - a thoracic/abdominal shot in living tissue - is less than the $400,000 SGLI payout that happens when hadji takes five rounds of 5.56 from an M-4 in the chest and still manages to kill a US soldier. If there is an alternative ammo with greater lethality that could have prevented this then everybody who blocked it's adoption has that soldier's blood on their hands (they obviously don't have a conscience to worry about). And the ones screaming about the various Law of Land Warfare Treaties - need to do their homework a little better. Most of their objections don't apply. My .02 - Peregrino

[jbour13]

I've been following this discussion from the beginning. Despite a few forays it has remained remarkably civil and intelligent/informative compared to the usual internet hyperbole and acrimony. What I don't understand is "what are we arguing about?" The ONLY things that I want to know about any ammunition are - "Does it perform as advertised in living flesh?" and "Is it safe to fire in modern weapons in good working order?" LeMas claims that their ammo does indeed perform as advertised in tissue and that it is safe to use in modern firearms in good working order. I have personally never seen or heard anything that would lead me to doubt those issues. In the 2 1/2 years that I've been following this debate I've spoken to a number of trusted eyewitnesses and seen lots of graphic videos that support the first claim (performance in living tissue) and I've personally witnessed range firing where I inspected the weapons used and was unable to detect any damage to the firearm after shooting as much ammo as was available (leading me to believe it's safe to shoot).

Every detractor of the LeMas ammo has concentrated on the round's performance in gelatin, a medium that LeMas has never (to the best of my knowledge) claimed would extract optimum performance. (Personally I've never been attacked by a block of gelatin so it's not one of my primary concerns.) I understand why the "scientific" community prefers to use calibrated ballistic gelatin as a test media. I have no problems with that practice - AS FAR AS IT GOES. I'll even admit that it has contributed to advances in ballistics research and development. However when there appears to be a significant disparity in results between a test media and live tissue, perhaps it's time to look "outside the box". Searching for a different model to explain the disparity does not invalidate the body of work done in gelatin, nor is it an attack on the persons of gelatin advocates. True scientists should be helping to expand the sphere on human knowledge, not viciously attacking "heretics" who challenge dogma.

The second tactic of the LeMas detractors is to dismiss the tissue results as "typical of lightweight, high velocity cartridges e.g. varmit rounds". Absolutely true - except as TR already pointed out most varmit rounds (I shoot 40/50 gr Sierra Blitzkings at 3400/3200 fps) have thin jackets and tend to "blow apart" at shallow depths. Makes for spectacular groundhog/jackrabbit hunting but I personally find it objectionable against heavier game. Suggesting a heads up comparison of similar bullet weight and velocity is valid but it's not the point. The point is LeMas is suggesting a paradigm shift (away from standard weights/velocities, conventional wisdom, towards his ammo). Nobody else appears to be suggesting this approach - none of the major manufacturers have (even the ones whose bullets other internet sites are claiming LeMas is "rebranding"). To support his assertion that his approach is the better one - the test has to be between what we use now and what he wants to sell us. I don't know about the metalurgy claims made by either side of this argument. As far as I'm concerned they can be BMT, conventional lead core/gilding metal jacket, or unobtanium, it doesn't matter if they perform in flesh as advertised. It's apples and oranges. LeMas says oranges are better while the gelatin crowd insists that oranges must be tested and proven to perform according to apple standards. Labeling it "Snake Oil" and dismissing it out of hand as marketing hyperbole does nothing to advance knowledge or performance. (Even the FDA acknowledges the necessity for human testing.)

I've weighed in on this argument because I'm a retired soldier. I have personal reasons to want our troops to have the most effective ammunition/equipment possible. Although I didn't participate in the current unpleasantness, I do have some combat experience. I also have a brother with four tours in the sandbox and many good friends who have paid recent/multiple dues over there. These are all people on the cutting edge; they depend on their weapons and ammo for their lives as well as mission accomplishment. Complaints about the efficacy of our current ammo have been growing and getting louder for years. The proposed solutions (e.g. the 6.8 debate) all have their proponents/opponents and the debates are particularly acrimonious (there's that word again; BTW - it means too blinded by prejudice to engage in civilized discourse or explore alternatives). If the LeMas rounds perform as advertised they represent a quantum leap in lethality (that's what soldiers do - they kill people and try to stay alive while doing it) that does not require the expense/difficulty of fielding a new weapons system. I get pissed about the entrenched position of the naysayers because they are preventing an unbiased examination of the ammunition. If it doesn't perform as advertised, so be it. I'll shut up and sit down. If it does do what LeMas claims, can/will the opponents do the same? Bottom line - The money to conduct open minded testing of the LeMas ammo in an appropriate media - a thoracic/abdominal shot in living tissue - is less than the $400,000 SGLI payout that happens when hadji takes five rounds of 5.56 from an M-4 in the chest and still manages to kill a US soldier. If there is an alternative ammo with greater lethality that could have prevented this then everybody who blocked it's adoption has that soldier's blood on their hands (they obviously don't have a conscience to worry about). And the ones screaming about the various Law of Land Warfare Treaties - need to do their homework a little better. Most of their objections don't apply. My .02 - Peregrino

So far I've learned volumes from this thread alone. Peregrino has brought this back to the root and it brings those basic questions back to the front.

From what I've read, this round isn't on par with a true varmint round, it sets the bar well beyond it. True varmint rounds lose integrity if you push the envelope too much. I've also seen hand loads (polymer ballistic tip) degrade to the point that you get jacket separation about 20 ft from the bore after one year of sitting in their cases. Kinda cool to see that little puff, but discouraging if you've loaded a few too many and can't do anything but pull the bullet or try it in another rifle. What makes this round so intriguing to me is that it retains mass on hard surface and dumps it's energy on less dense material (water based) like tissue.

Being a soldier, I could care less in this day and age if someone says a round is too lethal. That oxymoron speaks loudly from the bleeding hearts around the world. This day and age the Islamofacist seeks death and will only stay alive long enough to take an American with him. If he wants death, not a problem, high velocity lead poisioning shall be your end.

Controlling the variables with gelatin are fine. It's a fine test medium to determine a bullets behavior upon impact, ie, yawing upon impacting. It gives an approximate value of how well it penetrates. But since we've all determined that gelatin lacks those anatomical parts that humans are composed of, why is it the industry standard?

I've a few ideas why it is the standard. Availability, cost, consistent medium, no fighting with PETA,....makes sense to me. It's a comfort item for most manufacturers. I compare it with the first automobile and the controversy that surrounded it. It scares the horses, it smells, it costs too much, etc.

That being said, revolutionary developments happen everyday in multiple markets. The firearms industry has been one of the consistent players for a long time, and to compliment that, the ammunition manufacturers have pandered to them. It's a rarity that a specific type of ammunition is created and the gun/ weapon built around it. This ammuntion manufacturer has pretty well leveled the playing field and made lethal ammo in multiple configurations that seem to perform well in different calibers and platforms. This is likely the reason why you don't see much change and continued efforts to sow dis-information.

I know I'm preaching to the choir! Not pointing fingers and calling names, PM me to keep this thread clear if you'd like to talk off-line.

[jatx]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but here is my observation after following this for the past year or so.

The LeMas debate is just like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, where an irreconcilable difference was pointed out as existing between two types of people: those who could care less how the cycle works (so long as it works) and those who must understand how it works in order to be satisfied. The two types remain forever mutually unintelligible. They frustrate the hell out of each other.

The gel versus warm meat argument is a red herring, IMHO. It is only being brought up because half of the people discussing this technology will not be happy until they learn something about the ammuntion's precise mechanism of action.

[Peregrino]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but here is my observation after following this for the past year or so.

The LeMas debate is just like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, where an irreconcilable difference was pointed out as existing between two types of people: those who could care less how the cycle works (so long as it works) and those who must understand how it works in order to be satisfied. The two types remain forever mutually unintelligible. They frustrate the hell out of each other.

The gel versus warm meat argument is a red herring, IMHO. It is only being brought up because half of the people discussing this technology will not be happy until they learn something about the ammuntion's precise mechanism of action.


I bow to your overwhelming mastery (of the obvious! :p ). I'm not worthy to bask in your luminence. I'm merely a lowly grunt, trudging endlessly on the treadmill of life, muttering meaningless obfuscations to an uncaring world. In all seriousness, you're absolutely (mostly) right. I am interested in how/why things work but I'm not going to let a lack of understanding get in the way of using whatever will do the best job. Function is always more important than form - an attitude that has cost me more than once over the years. I'll save irrelevant speculation about somebody's "trade secrets" (real, or as some have claimed - fraudulent, they must be concealed to preserve their economic value) for the GB Club and a pitcher of whatever somebody else is buying. If the discussion is worthwhile I'll even pay for the next round. The issue is fairly simple - show the government everything you've got (or anybody else for that matter) and if they decide to purchase the product, they publish specifications and release a bid for contract - TO THE ENTIRE WORLD. So much for the economic value of a trade secret. Ask Colt why FN is making the M-16 - or any other lowest bidder government contractor for that matter. I don't mind somebody making money on a good idea, that's not a crime. And if it's about flim-flam as some have claimed - well it's a commercial marketplace. Put your money where your mouth is and compete. (I don't favor the lawsuit approach but if you can prove fraud - that's actionable in a court.) This argument is about power/prestige and economic impact. And it's as bad as anything in academia. I just want to see a fair test on a relevant (SHOOT WITH INTENT TO KILL A LIVE BODY) media. Gelatin is not shooting our soldiers in the sandbox - however repeatable it's results are in the labratory. FWIW _ Peregrino

[Odd Job]

@ NDD

1. I don't believe anybody here has said that gelatin is useless as a test medium, unless jokingly. It is just not the end all - be all of testing mediums. Unless of course that is the target you will be using on a daily basis. I don't look for the round that performs best on paper either. Since we will be shooting tissue, is tissue not a viable test medium for us? Since when did the medium become the test?

I have already agreed to play devil's advocate and go along with the LeMas stipulation that the optimum effects of the bullet can only be seen in live tissues of a certain temperature. The aim is till the same, to demonstrate consistency in performance, and to that end I have suggested various shot placement and imaging parameters to achieve this. So I would expect to see consistently superior performance of these rounds in pig thighs compared to ballistic gel (and to keep things simple, lets stick to handgun ammunition for now). If LeMas claims this will not be something that can be demonstrated then we have a failure to produce any results that can be analysed in a scientific manner.

2. And then the performance of LeMas ammunition. Here on this board we have a report by a Trauma Surgeon regarding the performance of LeMas on tissue. So I ask again, does anybody have any proof that LeMas does not perform as stated in tissue?

Well I need the X-rays because much of my enquiry depends on them. I have a definite problem with using a destructive technique to macroscopically document damage that is taking place in three planes in a medium that is not homogenous and is not lucent. X-rays become essential, not supplementary in these cases. When I have the X-rays I can proceed further.

I would make the following suggestions to whoever is going to digitize the films, so that certain basic mistakes are not made (as are often made and have been made in the past when analysing radiographs of projectile injuries):

1) Digitizing the film by means of a dedicated film scanner is preferred. Most academic hospitals (especially those with a level 1 trauma center) will have access to one of these.

2) If you are really stuck and you can't get access to a film scanner such as a Vidar unit and you have to photograph the film on a lightbox, then you need a high resolution camera, preferably one that can take pictures with no compression or lossless compression in a native B&W mode. That's because the tint of the emulsion can affect the perceived radiological densities when the image is captured on a camera. Ideally the film should be photographed on a single lightbox pane with any surrounding light masked off, and the camera set on a tripod with the flash disabled.

3) The exposure factors for each radiograph need to be known. For our purposes we can get by with FFD (known as SID in the US), kV and mAs and simply whether the cassette had fine or regular intensifying screens. If the X-rays were done with a mobile X-ray unit I need to know the model as several 'vintage' machines have very large focal spots and that would exclude the films straight away because of unacceptable geometrical unsharpnes. Most modern fixed units produce little geometrical unsharpness (for what we are looking for).

4) Do not apply any post-processing, annotations or resizing filters to the image. The images will probably be too large to post here but you can email the untouched ones to me and post manipulated versions here, or let me do that.

5) And finally, very important: it is essential to know the central ray direction and any angulation relative to the film for each radiograph, where the central ray was not perpendicular to the film. This is to account for false projection of projectile fragments radiographically. The basic position of the target at the time of the X-ray must be known (AP vs PA, HBL vs vertical ray lateral) and also whether the X-rays are pre or post invasive inspection.

[Surgicalcric]

You guys are confusing the hell out of me.

I like a few others here just want to know if it works, if it works as claimed in live tissue. I will have to consult with TR, TS, NDD, etc... (basically people I trust) on the finer details of its MOA.

Gelatin is not shooting our soldiers in the sandbox - however repeatable it's results are in the labratory. FWIW _ Peregrino

This I can however understand... Let me know when you will be at the GB club again Sir and that pitcher of your choice is on me.

Crip

[APLP]

Odd Job,

If I can work out access details, you will be invited to the next live fire evolution. You can supervise the imaging protocols that will be available. No public discussions as to who and where on this forum. I will PM you in the next couple of days. You will be free however to post the details of the information you collect.

[HOLLiS]

Very enjoyable read, Like Peregrino, My mind is only basically only concern with;

"does that dog hunt?"

[Odd Job]

@ APLP

That is a generous offer and I appreciate it, but I am hampered by my commitments here in London. Trust me, I would love to attend that kind of event, but I can't even see my folks in Colorado this year.
It should be adequate for your X-ray tech to get in touch with me so we can talk about all the boring details. There are a bucket load, and in that bucket there must be at least 20 hurdles that nobody would even think of, that could render X-ray documentation in your tests invalid.

Okay, let me tell you where I am coming from so you can get a better flavour of what my interest is.

In 2002 I conducted research into live gunshot victims in Johannesburg. This was formal research: I had to set up a protocol and get it cleared with the Ethics Committee at the university attached to the hospital. Now some aspects of what I was doing are similar to what you are going to have to do, namely the identification and documentation of projectiles and projectile fragments in the body with a view to correlating this with damage as evident clinically (whether invasive or not). In your case, because the parameters of the tissue damage are paramount, an invasive approach is not a suitable primary investigation into the effects of your ammunition. It can be supplementary but not primary. The bottom line is that there must be mechanisms and protocols in place to establish correlation between the wounds as seen on the target and the radiological features of these wounds.
In effect what you need is a radiological indication of as many waypoints as possible within the terminal trajectory of that projectile. As an example, I will show you a case from my research. Bear in mind that I was at a distinct disadvantage compared to you because I didn't have ANY data surrounding the shooting, other than what I was allowed to ask the patient within the limitations of what the committee pronounced an ethical question or not.

Here is one of the cases of 150 from that research. And it is a very basic case, not with any unusual findings, I am just using it because the images were handy because it was one of the cases I presented at a national forensic conference in September last year.

This was a young male who had sustained a single gunshot wound to the chest. One skin breach was found anteriorly on the left below the clavicle and the other was found posteriorly also on the left, just lateral to the scapula.
Clinically he was okay. Now the following image is his chest radiograph, done erect, but with certain features digitally extracted by me, so that the radiograph represents a standard chest radiograph that you may encounter in any emergency room today.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/PSXInitialNoMarkers.jpg

Those of you with a sharp eye will be able to detect evidence of projectile damage (fractured scapula) but you won't be able to tell me where that sits on the terminal trajectory. To this end, it is customary (for a dual clinical and forensic purpose) to place markers on the skin breaches prior to X-ray so that we can incorporate those wound components into the X-ray analysis. And you don't need anything special, you can use paperclips if you like, bent into triangles:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/PSPaperclip.jpg

Here is the actual radiograph taken by me on initial presentation of the patient. Here you can see the skin breach markers that I digitally extracted from the first image:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/PSXMarked.jpg

What does this give us? Well in the case of a perforating injury we have now documented the entry and exit point of the projectile relative to the internal trajectory as visualised radiologically. In effect we have the start and end waypoints of that trajectory. (The same technique is used in penetrating injuries except you only have one skin breach marker and the other end of the trjectory is anchored by the parent projectile fragment).
Note that in this perforating injury I don't specify which is the entrance and which is the exit. I photographed the wounds and they were unremarkable. There was no way for me to determine which was the entrance and which was the exit macroscopically. Anyway that isn't important here. What is important is that the waypoints of the terminal trajectory can now be plotted because we have skin breach markers and we have a fracture of the scapula:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/PSXWaypoints.jpg

And that enables us to plot a basic trajectory, even in the absence of retained projectile fragments:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/PSXTrajectory.jpg

And if you know what you are doing you can make a 3D representation of the trajectory. Note that you would need biplanar imaging, in other words a lateral view with markers to achieve this. Here is the 3D representation that I created for this case.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/PS3D.jpg

So you see, gentlemen, that is just one benefit and one requirement when analysing projectile injuries by radiological means. You have to mark the skin breaches. In a medical scenario we don't need to provide a radiographical scale for these images, but in your case you definitely do, because your subject isn't human and the dimensions of the wound track and distribution of fragments is the subject of measurement. I could go on all day about the radiological appearances of gunshot wounds and some of it is quite technical, but rest assured there are pitfalls in the imaging of these hogs.
I have not even touched on the radiological density of different projectile materials. It is in your best interest to specify what those components are prior to any X-ray analysis.

[APLP]

I just saw this article posted on the "Internet".

Edited to add link, http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7206084761/m/4161099242

PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J. -- The Army has completed a detailed study of the effectiveness of its standard-issue M855 5.56mm ammunition cartridge that is used in the M16 and the M4 rifles.

The study found no significant difference between the M855 and commercially available 5.56mm rounds during close fighting.

A team of military, scientific, medical, engineering and law enforcement experts conducted the study for the Army’s Project Manager, Maneuver Ammunition Systems located here.

“All of the rounds studied performed in a band of effectiveness that will produce excellent results in real-life situations,” Col. Mark D. Rider said.

The study sought to answer whether any commercial, off-the-shelf 5.56mm bullets that perform better than M855 against unarmored targets in Close Quarters Battle might be available.

It was limited further to determining if the Army could quickly purchase and field a possible replacement for the M855 and did not consider replacing the current inventory of 5.56mm weapons with weapons of another caliber.

“This was not a caliber study” Rider said. “However, it did find that the current family of 5.56mm weapons and the older 7.62mm M14 have the same potential effectiveness in the hands of a Warfighter during the heat of battle.”

The study also showed an increase in lethal potential when the marksmanship technique of firing controlled pairs, i.e. firing two rounds in rapid succession, was used.

Rider said the Army will continue to study variations in performance that some Soldiers and Marines to criticize the M855 while the overall majority are satisfied with its effectiveness.

He also noted that researchers believe that interaction between the weapon and the bullet may be the root cause of “through-and-through.”

In arriving at these conclusions, the team developed ground-breaking tools and methodologies that apply sophisticated modeling and equipment normally reserved for the study of high-dollar systems such as tanks and artillery to less costly weapons for the very first time.

As a result, new standards for testing small caliber ammunition are emerging that will help bring the science of more costly system to individual weapon.

Rider said that his organization is beginning to study how commercially available rounds perform against common battlefield barriers like body armor, car doors, and windshield glass compared to the M855. Answers to these questions will help improve the lethal capability of the ground forces for decades into the future, he said.

[MRF54]

APLP,
Do you have a link/source for the article you cut and pasted?
MRF54

[MtnGoat]

APLP,
Do you have a link/source for the article you cut and pasted?
MRF54
Try to find the "internet" Article but I found this one. Some good Info and reading.

It's DefenseReview's (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=577) opinion that...

law enforcement agencies of all types, federal, state, and local, should take a a serious look at the Le Mas Ltd. Blended Metal Technology (BMT) Armor-Piercing Limited-Penetration (APLP) ammo for anti-terrorism/counterterrorism use, specifically as an option for their SWAT/SRT teams. 1st Responders, most of whom don’t carry a 5.56 weapon with them, could also benefit from carrying this ammo. Fortunately, Le Mas makes .40 Cal. pistol ammo that can penetrate NIJ level IIIa body armor.


So, patrol officers/1st responders can carry the .40 Cal. BMT APLP ammo in a 3rd or 4th spare mag, and only deploy it when they encounter an armored threat. Everyone remembers what happened during the ’97 Bank of America shoot-out. Until SWAT got there, the 1st responders (patrol LEO's) were powerless against the armored BG’s (badguys). Even if LE patrol officers were to all carry 5.56 rifles in their cars, what happens if their rifle/primary weapon goes down? Wouldn’t it be a good thing if all LE patrol officers/1st responders could still have primary weapon-type capability out of their secondary weapon platform, just in case?


The reported performance of the Le Mas Ltd. BMT APLP 85gr .45 CQB round is particularly impressive for pistol ammunition. It has a velocity of well over 2000 fps out of a 5-inch Government model 1911 pistol, and will easily penetrate NIJ level IIIa body armor. However, once it penetrates the armor, it will not over-penetrate the target. This is because the Le Mas BMT APLP .45 CQB round stays completely intact while passively penetrating non-living barriers. However, once it hits living tissue, the combination of hydrostatic pressure and and other factors (heat/temperature change, etc.) causes the bullet to go active and deflagrate inside the target, in dynamic fashion.


The Le Mas rifle ammo appears to be just as impressive. According to Le Mas their rifle ammo will penetrate hardened steel plating, hard armor level III and IV tactical inserts (body armor), armored cars, armored personnel carriers, etc., disable human targest behind it, without over-penetrating those human targets. From what DefRev understands, both the 5.56x45mm AND 7.62x51mm Le Mas Ltd. BMT APLP rounds can penetrate NIJ level III and NIJ level IV hard armor barriers. DefRev has received some emails from Stan Bulmer of Le Mas Ltd. on their 7.62x51mm/.308 “Land Warfare” round, and try to provide links to those messages in a follow-up article.


Defense Review has in it's possession a Le Mas Ltd. Blended Metal Technology (BMT) ammo demonstration video, in CD format. The video footage, which shows live animal testing (hogs, specifically), is very graphic, but also very informative. DefenseReview may make this video available soon on our website in QuickTime format, for downloading by our readers. It's important to note that live animal testing was necessary, in order to demonstrate the unique performance aspects/capabilities of Le Mas Ltd. Blended Metal Technology (BMT) and BMT APLP (Armor-Piercing Limited-Penetration) ammo, since the ammunition does not perform nearly the same way in 10% ordnance gelatin as it does against live tissue. In live tissue, the results are dramatic.

[APLP]

APLP,
Do you have a link/source for the article you cut and pasted?
MRF54

Sorry my bad, hope these work.

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7206084761/m/4161099242

This CBS News story somewhat related to the above post concerning the current US Military 5.56 ammo posted on

www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=001201

Jun 7, 2006 6:16 pm US/Mountain

Concern Growing Over U.S. Troops' Ammo
Tests Raise Questions About Bullet For M-16 Rifle
(CBS News) As American troop casualties in Iraq continue to mount, concern is growing they may be outgunned. That includes new questions about the stopping power of the ammunition that is used by the standard-issue M-16 rifle.

Shortly after the U.N. headquarters was bombed in Baghdad in August 2003, a Special Forces unit went to Ramadi to capture those responsible.

In a fierce exchange of gunfire, one insurgent was hit seven times by 5.56 mm bullets, reports CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian. It took a shot to the head with a pistol to finally bring him down. But before he died, he killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded seven more.

"The lack of the lethality of that bullet has caused United States soldiers to die," says Maj. Anthony Milavic.

Milavic is a retired Marine major who saw three tours of duty in Vietnam. He says the small-caliber 5.56, essentially a .22-caliber civilian bullet, is far better suited for shooting squirrels than the enemy, and contends that urban warfare in Iraq demands a bigger bullet. "A bullet that knocks the man down with one shot," he says. "And keeps him down."

Milavic is not alone. In a confidential report to Congress last year, active Marine commanders complained that: "5.56 was the most worthless round," "we were shooting them five times or so," and "torso shots were not lethal."

In last week's Marine Corps Times, a squad leader said his Marines carried and used "found" enemy AK-47s because that weapon's 7.62 mm bullets packed "more stopping power."

Bruce Jones is a mechanical engineer who helped design artillery, rifles and pistols for the Marines.

"I saw the tests that clearly showed how miserable the bullets really were in performance," he says. "But that's what we're arming our troops with. It's horrible, you know, it's unconscionable."

To demonstrate to CBS News, Jones fired the larger-caliber 7.62 bullet fired by AK-47s used by insurgents in Iraq into a block of glycerin. The hole cavity is 50 percent or more larger than that of the 5.56.

"You can't just go out and, you know, rig up a little block of Jello and shoot at it and prove anything," says Pierre Sprey, a former Pentagon weapons expert.

Since the early days of the Vietnam War, Sprey has been a champion of the 5.56, and believes it both lethal and light.

"The brilliant thing about that bullet is that it allowed the infantrymen to easily carry 300 rounds," Sprey says. "Whereas the old sharpshooter's heavy, slow round — he could only carry 100."

In the chaos of war, the more bullets the better, he says, because bursts of automatic fire beat one big bullet at a time.

"There is no such thing as a well-aimed shot in combat, because combat is fought by scared 18-year-olds who haven't been trained enough and are in a place they've never seen before," Sprey says.

Here at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, the government's own engineers have done the most extensive testing on the 5.56 since 1990 and issued two draft reports.

In the first, dated 2004, the 5.56 ranked last in lethality out of three bullets tested.

A second draft, dated last month, confirmed that rating, ranking the 5.56 dead last in close-quarter combat.

The army issued a final report last week that concludes in essence that those test results are wrong and misleading. It argues the 5.56 has the "same potential effectiveness" of the 7.62 during the heat of battle.

Either way, there's no questions that if the Pentagon did have any questions about this bullet, it would face some very expensive modifications to the M-16.

[Gene Econ]

[QUOTE=APLP]This CBS News story somewhat related to the above post concerning the current US Military 5.56 ammo posted on (CBS News) As American troop casualties in Iraq continue to mount, concern is growing they may be outgunned. That includes new questions about the stopping power of the ammunition that is used by the standard-issue M-16 rifle. [QUOTE]

APLP:

No offense please. Two issues with this.

1. CBS News.

2. The vast majority (over 95 percent) of US casualties are caused by IADs or VBEDs. I doubt one of one hundred casualties is caused by direct small arms fire. This is due to two reasons itself.

a. Arabs have no clue about marksmanship.

b. The AK 47 and 7.62X39 combination must be the least accurate combination of assault rifle and ammunition ever made.

If the Marines want to issue their troops the AK-47 and 7.62X39 I say let them go for it. Just ensure they give all their M-4's and A-2s with their entire allocation of that 'non Afghani / Iraqi killing' M-855 to the Army.

Gene

[APLP]

Hey Gene,

I think you are spot on for what my $.02 cents is worth.

Just thought thought it interesting that CBS news apparently put the story out.

[Gene Econ]

Hey Gene, I think you are spot on for what my $.02 cents is worth. Just thought thought it interesting that CBS news apparently put the story out.

APLP:

I sometimes just get tired of hearing the fifty year old arguments surrounding the 5.56 ammo and the AR designs. The Soviets went from 7.62X39 to 5.45 and probably for the same reasons we went from 7.62 X 51 to 5.56. Given that we have enough AK-47s and enough 7.62X39 to support the specific Marine units that want them for CQB, I say let them go for it with a very well written order that they got what they want so they can shut their traps.

CBS news could care less about the lethality of the issued ammunition. No doubt they would be screaming to high heaven if your ammo got issued due to its terminal effects. All they want to do is undermine the will of our guys to fight and they will use any means to push their radical left agenda.

Gene

[Bill Harsey]

CBS news could care less about the lethality of the issued ammunition. No doubt they would be screaming to high heaven if your ammo got issued due to its terminal effects. All they want to do is undermine the will of our guys to fight and they will use any means to push their radical left agenda.

Gene

Yep.

[Odd Job]

@ APLP

However, once it hits living tissue, the combination of hydrostatic pressure and and other factors (heat/temperature change, etc.) causes the bullet to go active and deflagrate inside the target, in dynamic fashion.

This is the part that intrigues me. It raises questions:

1) At what point does the bullet 'go active?' Is it at the skin, for instance, or the subcutaneous fat?

2) Is this distance the same whether the bullet goes through armour first or not?

3) After the bullet has gone through the armour (remaining intact), it will be pretty hot, yes? I mean it started out quite hot from firing and from the friction within the rifling, then it punched through a piece of metal. This must mean that the bullet will be hotter than if it was fired straight into the tissue with no intervening metal. My question then is: if the temperature of the bullet upon striking the plate is X and it gains a further amount Y due to impact and friction physics, and the minimum tissue temperature needed for 'going active' is T, does this mean that when shooting living tissue through armour you can shoot targets of temperature T-Y and still have a projectile that 'goes active?'

[MtnGoat]

Just thought thought it interesting that CBS news apparently put the story out.
CBS News is on a "Makeover" due to their Pass reporting.

Look at the way they are getting to all the SOF Training centers to show how "PRO" Military their are now.

We show SF and their new Pipeline and next we will show the SEAL-SPEC WARFARE Program, then we go to AFSOC so show have they have these Quite Professionals down at Florida and then the new MARSOC. The American people will see have "Good" we are. Then when that on story hits, we can take it to them, because we are in bed with everyone. Lets see if it works.

CBS and their Makeover - please. Katie will do so well there. Just wish FOX News would start an evening news program to counter balance the whole network plays. FOX EVENING NEWS - on local FOX and FOX NEWS Channel- FAIR and BALANCE - well I won't go there, but its better.

[swatsurgeon]

It seems that the 'controversy' of the LeMas ammunition will continue between the two factions of lab vs. live tissue testing.

I would like to add some scientific terms so that Mr. McClung can see that this physician is able to converse in the academic arena that I was trained in. For the record:
the shoot I attended was a matched cohort, observational study. This offers Class II data. These studies are done to assess the status of a variable typically when the investigator feels that a bias may exist that can alter the factor being investigated. These studies are non-experimental because no variable manipulation occurs, no 'treatments' are performed.

Stan Bulmer can offer which particular firearm, length barrel, twist rate, etc, were used for the shoot...I do know an off the shelf Glock 17 was used as the handgun for 9mm.

As far as the composition of each bullet and terms previously used to describe bullet makeup, behavior, etc, make absolutely NO difference as the end results were the FACTS IN EVIDENCE, not a metallurgy discussion or explaining the physics of bullet performance....it was an observation of wound ballistics in the live tissue model.
I am amused by the fact that no explanation was offered of how the bullet could not work in tissue, simply that it did not perform in ballistic gelatin as has been shown in live tissue. How does someone explain this disconnect other than gel is not an adequate medium to appropriately "model" the wound potential of this ammunition....that was the intent of my commentary.

The interesting aspect of all of this is that the LEO version of this commentary I wrote wasn't published, but has received more queries to me than the version on this site and defensereview.com. I have had several SWAT/ERT teams asking for more live tissue fire information. They are not restricted by the same issues as the military and each LE agency can choose which ever ammunition they wish with the okay of a department chief.

As we all know, shot placement is paramount in any discussion of wound ballistics, but isn't it a favorable ammunition when it is armor penetrating and maintains it's greater wounding potential than other ammunition? Also noting that the wounding is significantly more than other commercially used ammunition so that what would be a non-incapacitaing hit (and we have seen hundreds/thousands of these) becomes an incapacitaing hit on a bad guy....this alone could save the lives of officers, civilians and others. This is where the Miami shootout, the North Hollywood bank robbery and countless other LE shooting may have ended sooner with those officers still here today....ballistic vests made a big difference in saving lives, so can an ammunition.

It doesn't work in gel like it does in tissue: forget temperature, hype and the past advertising. It works in tissue and demonstrates no correlation to gel modeling. I was encouraged/challenged to read the book by Duncan MacPherson (Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics....)....I have. I found it interesting reading. I do have some problems with some of the theories:
- "CNS wounds almost always cause instant physiological WTI (wound trauma incapacitation)".....I wish they did but this is not what we see in practice. Many patients are brought to trauma centers shot in the head only to be able to shoot back at LE and give us their entire history.
- "Vital wounds: to heart and mahjor arteries." I agree with the theory but again in practice I have cared for patients shot through the heart and great vessels that continued to shoot, slash, struggle with police until they either exsanguinate (20-60 seconds) or are weakened enough to be overtaken by LE. Again as the book states, it's all about shot placement (taking seconds to 'minutes'), not the caliber. It is this seconds to minutes that can cost an officer their life.

My contention is that a bullet should have maximum incapacitation potential so that a gun fight is over faster. The book describes models but I found no clinical correlation other than referenced pig leg shots. As a trauma surgeon, modeling offers only a fraction of the information we learn about and see.
Here is data from the 2nd busiest trauma center in the US . It describes the percent of deaths from an isolated wound to a region of the body...patients that die from their wounds from the time of impact to not being discharged from the hospital alive. (data from coroners office for field deaths)
- deaths from isolated wounds to the head = 62%
- deaths from isolated wounds to the chest = 28%
- deaths from isolated wounds to the abdomen = 9%
- deaths from isolated wounds to the extremity <1%
No bullet manufacturer will stand up and say their bullet incapacitated more people than others, but they advertise ballistic parameters as a way for us to judge them based on tests that adequately assess those parameters. Their designs are made around those standardized tests.....do we dismiss the next bullet manufacturer that bucks the system and develops a round that 'acts different' and doesn't conform to gel testing?

This 'academic' argument will not be resolved here or any other web site. What will come out of this, I hope, is an appreciation for differences in opinion based on non-conforming testing and analysis. Real world tests on real living tissue (learning from the streets) is what will finally put a rest to this discussion. It may be that I will be proven incorrect, which I accept if the tests are validated by the medium in which the bullet was designed to optimally perform. I admit this; are Dr. Roberts and Mr. McClung also ready to admit this?
Which model predicted this.....none to my searching of the literature....just as no model has adequately predicted the LeMas other than live tissue.
As for the stats I presented above...just imagine as an officer (police, SWAT, FBI, Secret Service, Marshals, etc) a bullet that doen't overpenetrate and increases those death %'ages as to end the fight sooner and have an ammunition do what it was designed to do...end the confrontation and potentially save their life because when the opponent is hit, it has a better chance of being either fatal or atleast incapacitating.

I will continue in my efforts to educate those that are interested and share my observations of what I believe is a superior ammunition. It could certainly put a damper on the practices of Trauma Surgeons around the country...not at all a bad thing.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Swatsurgeon, great post!

[NousDefionsDoc]

Most excellent post Syd. Thank you.

[Odd Job]

@ Swatsurgeon

I would be interested to know more about your gunshot wound statistics:

1) What hospital are those statistics from, and what time period?
2) What was the total number of gunshot wounds in that time period?

Here are my stats for the Johannesburg General Hospital in South Africa (I am sure you have heard of that hospital because many of your countrymen have come to that hospital to get trauma experience). It is the hospital at which I gained all my experience with gunshot wounds. General figures for 1999:

1) The JHB Gen saw more than 16,000 adult trauma patients. They have a separate casualty department just for adult trauma. There are two other casualty departments, a paediatric one and a medical one. Here is the breakdown of the modes of injury for the adult trauma cases:

7,892 were due to accidents.
4,440 were due to blunt force assaults.
2,214 were due to stabbings or penetrating assaults with edged or pointed weapons.
1,755 were due to gunshots.

That is an average of at least 146 gunshot victims a month. (If you know of a civilian hospital in the US that sees more than 146 gunshot victims a month, please let me know because I need to get in touch with them about research opportiunities.) The only civilian hospital I know of that can beat that total is also in South Africa (the Chris Hani 'Baragwanath') but it is not a level 1 trauma unit.

I have another set of figures from 2002 when I did gunshot research at the JHB Gen. This was in a four month period from May to August in 2002. Gunshots were down because there was a heavy police presence in JHB because of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. During that time a total of 542 gunshot victims attended the hospital. I took 150 of those for my research, and I conducted detailed documentation of their wounds, their medical imaging, their management, any projectile retrieval, and even the appearance of their clothing as an intermediate barrier. I am almost finished writing my book on that sample. However, I also collected some data for all 542 victims and here is what I found:

Only 24 patients died (either in casualty, in theatre or on the ward). This has much to do with the South African expertise in the matter, they are very good at managing gunshot wounds. This is a breakdown of the deceased victims:

7 were abdominal injuries
6 were chest injuries
2 were chest and abdominal injuries
5 were head injuries
1 had head and chest injuries
2 were neck injuries
1 had a thigh injury

Of the 24 deaths, 9 were dead in the resus bay, 13 were dead in theatre and 2 died on the ward.

Of the total number of 542 patients, here is the distribution of abdo, chest, neck and head injuries:

94 abdominal
7 abdominal + another body part (usually an extremity)
63 chest
9 chest and abdomen
17 chest and another body part (usually an extremity)
17 neck

Most of these injuries were due to handguns. I can assure you that I can converse with anybody in the world about the subject of gunshot wounds, and I can do it with good standing. If you are in any doubt about this, try me.

Now here are my observations on the matter, with regards to your role in the LeMas testing:

1) Your sample of pigs vs ammunition type is too small to arrive at a useful organ damage model.
2) Your sole mode of determination of effect is a destructive process (a 'necropsy'). To make matters worse, the discovery of injuries is likely to be negatively influenced by virtue of the fact that these were not human victims and therefore your expertise is not directly transferable.
3) If you want to demonstrate the action of the projectile you have to provide proper imaging. This is to offset any inaccuracies that may have crept in due to (1) and (2) above, and the relatively rudimentary and uncontrolled environment in which these tests were carried out. This is a very basic requirement. Much of what we do in the hospital environment to track projectiles and their fragments is applicable to a test like this, where the projectile and its post-impact configuration is the subject of analysis.
4) Because of the small sample of pigs and mode of investigation there is likely to be as much variation in the discovery of injuries form shot-to-shot tests of the same ammunition (whether it is LeMas or not) as there is likely to be between shot-to-shot tests of different ammunition.

So there we have a problem with how you have 'documented' these effects.

Now, to address the growing mantra of 'but if it works, who cares how it works':

1) Nobody would care if the product was being marketed as any other similar round is, and was being priced accordingly.
2) The problem comes from the advertising and marketing spin put on these projectiles. I refer to my questions in my previous post about the thermal response of the LeMas projectile. This is not an issue about whether the LeMas bullet can kill, this is an issue about whether the advertised advantages of the LeMas projectile over similar projectiles in that class, are in fact valid and can be consistently demonstrated. When LeMas states that gel cannot be used to demonsrate such effects consistently or even at all, then we turn to other means. Such means have not been adequately provided. I still have not seen any X-ray imaging of these pigs (I only hope that the imaging that I saw on another site is not indicative of the quality of the X-rays that were taken).

Lastly, let me tell you this: I am very pleased with your admission that you might be wrong about this ammunition. The trauma community is largely unified and we all play a role to some extent in the advancement of the field and the dicovery of relevant effects/treatments. Unfortunately, any disingenuousness is also propogated within the community and I would rather see that 'one of our own' was criticised for inadequate scientific examination of the product, rather than being a victim of the Emperor's New Clothes effect and all of the chicanery that is associated with it.

[Team Sergeant]

@ 1) The JHB Gen saw more than 16,000 adult trauma patients. They have a separate casualty department just for adult trauma. There are two other casualty departments, a paediatric one and a medical one. Here is the breakdown of the modes of injury for the adult trauma cases:

7,892 were due to accidents.
4,440 were due to blunt force assaults.
2,214 were due to stabbings or penetrating assaults with edged or pointed weapons.
1,755 were due to gunshots.

That is an average of at least 146 gunshot victims a month. (If you know of a civilian hospital in the US that sees more than 146 gunshot victims a month, please let me know because I need to get in touch with them about research opportiunities.) The only civilian hospital I know of that can beat that total is also in South Africa (the Chris Hani 'Baragwanath') but it is not a level 1 trauma unit.



In 1999, approximately 2,000 firearm injury victims were admitted to LA County trauma centers. The medical charges to treat these victims exceeded $58 million with an average charge of $30,270.
- California Dept of Health Service, IVPP/PHIS Death Data 2000

http://www.vpcla.org/factFirearms.htm

another source LA County Hospital;

year 2000;

13,067 were due to blunt force trauma.
3832 were due to stabbings or penetrating assaults with edged or pointed weapons.
2476 were due to gunshots.


http://www.facs.org/education/gs2003/gs39asensio.pdf

It took only a few seconds to find this information from
multiple sources, I even found 1999 data which trumps the data you posted.

Your area of specialty, you are an X-Ray Tech? Your ability to perform competent research is showing.

TS

[Odd Job]

@ TS

Your area of specialty, you are an X-Ray Tech? Your ability to perform competent research is showing.

And your ability to read my post properly is questionable. Try working out the difference between figures relating to one hospital (the Johannesburg Hospital) and the figures relating to LA County trauma centres, as you quoted above. I can get figures from all the casualty departments in Johannesburg if that is what you want, but it doesn't matter that the figures are greater in South Africa, what matters is that I must show relevant experience so that I can discuss the matter at hand. Dr Vail would appreciate it.
You have obviously misinterpreted my post. Perhaps you should try to brush aside your animosity towards me and let Dr Vail respond. I would like to see if he is as dismissive of me (because I am an X-ray tech), as you are.
Edit: I agree that LA sees a great deal of gunshot victims too and if you and Dr Vail have worked in those trauma centres that is definitely noteworthy.

[Team Sergeant]

@ TS



And your ability to read my post properly is questionable. Try working out the difference between figures relating to one hospital (the Johannesburg Hospital) and the figures relating to LA County trauma centres, as you quoted above. I can get figures from all the casualty departments in Johannesburg if that is what you want, but it doesn't matter that the figures are greater in South Africa, what matters is that I must show relevant experience so that I can discuss the matter at hand. Dr Vail would appreciate it.
You have obviously misinterpreted my post. Perhaps you should try to brush aside your animosity towards me and let Dr Vail respond. I would like to see if he is as dismissive of me (because I am an X-ray tech), as you are.
Edit: I agree that LA sees a great deal of gunshot victims too and if you and Dr Vail have worked in those trauma centres that is definitely noteworthy.


I have spoken with Prince’s, Senators, MIT Graduates, Yale Physicians (surgeons) etc and have no problem conversing in the English language or interpreting data written in the same language. What I do perceive is a boorish attempt to devalue the professional opinion of a surgeon and authority on human tissue and terminal ballistic injuries. I also can distinguish the difference of a professional opinion and that of someone with a self serving and pompous attitude such as you.

You are an X-Ray Technician, you observe two dimensional data and interpret that data. You are undoubtedly a linear thinker, structured data with logical outcomes are your forte and anything outside such controlled environment are not easily grasped. You are easy to read my friend, like a book.

I do however have a problem with amateurs or layperson discussing a topic of which they have only read about or heard about and have no real working knowledge of, such as a dentist or an X-ray tech discussing terminal ballistic effects. Have you ever operated on a human with a gunshot wound? Have you ever witnessed a LeMas round in action? On any live tissue? Yet you argue with a trauma surgeon that has.
You argue because you believe you are on par with a surgeon abilities and experience, this is most amusing. While you might be able to fool some that the world is flat, others will always come away with a more substantial conclusion.

I would ask Dentist Roberts the same question but he will not answer. You both are amateurs when it comes to terminal effects on human tissue. At least Dr. Roberts is an expert on gelatin and bullet effects on said gelatin. You are what can be commonly referred to as a “self appointed expert”, except you seem to have a snot nosed attitude.

We didn’t know what killed all the dinosaurs until only a few years ago, we now know. We can travel though “space” but even the best rocket scientists don’t know what “space” is composed of. I challenge you to step out of your linear thinking. (And remove the attitude or take it elsewhere.)


Also remember where you are, this is a website for soldiers and not X-Ray Technicians.

Next time you post, if you return, try presenting some “data” from surgeons, Trauma surgeons would be great.

Team Sergeant

[Odd Job]

@ TS

What I do perceive is a boorish attempt to devalue the professional opinion of a surgeon and authority on human tissue and terminal ballistic injuries. I also can distinguish the difference of a professional opinion and that of someone with a self serving and pompous attitude such as you.

Boorish? That's rich coming from you. Whether Dr Vail is a currently recognised authority on terminal ballistics is the subject for another debate, and as he hasn't questioned my background and my standing on the matter I will extend to him the same courtesy. Self-serving interest...hmmm...I would like to know what that interest is, seeing as though I have no financial or professional stake in any of these products, nor do I have a professional obligation to ally myself to anyone here or on any other site.


You are an X-Ray Technician, you observe two dimensional data and interpret that data. You are undoubtedly a linear thinker, structured data with logical outcomes are your forte and anything outside such controlled environment are not easily grasped. You are easy to read my friend, like a book.

Actually in the US the term X-ray Tech refers to X-ray Technologist. It is a specific title attached to those who perform medical imaging for medical diagnosis. An X-ray technician repairs X-ray equipment. In other parts of the world we are known as Radiographers and those are also protected titles. We deal in multiplanar imaging too, not just two-dimensional. Do you know what a CT scanner is? In terms of me being easy to read 'like a book' perhaps you had better research what it is a radiographer or X-ray technologist does, before applying a blanket pseudo-psychoanalysis of me when you don't know very much about me or my profession.

I do however have a problem with amateurs or layperson discussing a topic of which they have only read about or heard about and have no real working knowledge of, such as a dentist or an X-ray tech discussing terminal ballistic effects.

I am not a layperson or an amateur. I'm an allied medical profession and an integral and vital part of any trauma team in the civilian setting. Anyone who tries to belittle or dismiss the contribution of a radiographer to the team is quite frankly not in touch with the structure of a casualty department. Here is a thought for you: you are so quick to dismiss my contribution here, but if I apply the same logic why should I should converse with you on the matter? Perhaps you would like to offer some statistics of your own, relating to all your experience with gunshot wounds before you dare to criticize mine.

Have you ever operated on a human with a gunshot wound? Have you ever witnessed a LeMas round in action? On any live tissue? Yet you argue with a trauma surgeon that has.

No I haven't operated on a person with a gunshot wound, have you? Have you perhaps X-rayed one? No? Okay, have you maybe conducted some research into gunshot wounds? Errrm, well maybe you shouldn't be so vocal about my 'inadequate' credentials then, should you? My research into gunshot wounds was cleared by the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. I have an ethics clearance number. I provided the material which will subsequently be published, to the head of the trauma unit in that hospital for review and his observation is that my work is very good. In fact I was asked to approach the post-graduate committee to submit it as the basis for a PhD. The findings of that research will be used to provide protocols in the handling of gunshot evidence, imaging of the gunshot victims, and guidelines for the accurate localisation and safe retrieval of projectiles in the hospital environment. If I didn't know what I was talking about I wouldn't have been invited to speak at the National Association of Forensic Radiographers and Society of Radiographers here in London. I have continuous requests for me to lecture on the subject, the latest one being from the State Pathologist in Northern Ireland. I am also involved in providing templates and guidelines for the design of 3D models to present gunshot trajectory exhibits in courts of law, also for that pathologist. So I would highly recommend to you that the next time you feel the urge to question what I know and what my station is in life, you just sit down and be quiet, because you don't know nearly enough to make that comment.

You argue because you believe you are on par with a surgeon abilities and experience, this is most amusing.

Oh really, where did I say or infer anything about a surgeon's abilities compared to mine? In terms of experience, mine is valid, ask Dr Vail and he will tell you.

I would ask Dentist Roberts the same question but he will not answer. You both are amateurs when it comes to terminal effects on human tissue. At least Dr. Roberts is an expert on gelatin and bullet effects on said gelatin. You are what can be commonly referred to as a “self appointed expert”, except you seem to have a snot nosed attitude.

My ability to offer a reasoned debate and back it up with my real-life experience of gunshot wounds is what allows me to converse with Dr Vail (and anybody else you care to mention) about these matters. If I was some kid who had been selling ice-creams on the beach for a living, it would be a different matter. Snot-nosed attitude....I'm not sure what you mean there, maybe you can explain it to me.

We didn’t know what killed all the dinosaurs until only a few years ago, we now know. We can travel though “space” but even the best rocket scientists don’t know what “space” is composed of. I challenge you to step out of your linear thinking.

It is laughable to compare research into prehistoric creatures with a handful of test firings of LeMAs ammunition in pigs. And as for linear thinking, can you prove to me objectively how my thinking is linear? Or is linear thinking the symptom of the greater disease of an individual not agreeing with you ;)


Also remember where you are, this is a website for soldiers and not X-Ray Technicians.

The debate at hand is well within my bailliwick. I don't post about matters that I can't provide a constructive and real contribution to. You might well learn something from that.

Next time you post, if you return, try presenting some “data” from surgeons, Trauma surgeons would be great.

Who do you think gives the trauma surgeon his figures? They usually come from the casualty nursing staff or the trauma co-ordinator. Mine come from the official trauma statistics of the Johannesburg Hospital and they were prepared by the charge nurse of area 163 (the adult trauma unit). I verified them just to be sure by going through all the registers myself. In terms of the 2002 statistics, the trauma surgeons were instructed to provide me with any clinical information I may need as regards the necessary information relating to the damage sustained by gunshot victims. By this I mean damage that was not radiologically evident and typically which meant damage found at surgery. I was present in the theatre for many of the cases and I took pictures of the damage that was found. The same applies to retrieved projectiles.
In terms of my contributiuon to the trauma surgeons at the JHB Gen Hospital, it has been substantial and valuable. We didn't have a radiologist after hours for plain film reporting, so mine was an opinion that was highly valued. In addition to that I often supplied variations in imaging protocols to detect as-yet unseen projectiles and I also found several valuable pieces of forensic evidence by examining clothing in the research. I have helped out many a trauma surgeon who missed something on the imaging or indeed missed an actual skin breach or clinical sign on a gunshot victim. You clearly don't know how a radiographer fits in to the trauma setup at a hospital, and what is more worrying is you clearly have little intention of posting anything that is relevant to the debate at hand.

(And remove the attitude or take it elsewhere.)

I am not the instigator here, but many would say I have put up with quite a lot of abuse from you already. Don't expect me to just lie down if you criticize my profession and my expertise, especially when you yourself have nothing of value to contribute.

[x SF med]

Odd Job-
1. you are a guest here, as am I, but I am slightly closer to this community than you, as I have undergone the same training as these other Special Forces soldiers - in both the Weapons and Medical specialties. Were you to come into my house, and speak to me the way you are speaking to the owners and moderators of this site, I'd toss you out on your ass.

2. You are boorish - you may know your job, and be very technically proficient - but , sorry bud - you are a boorish and insufferable prig, with the people skills of a wounded wolverine.

3. TS has probably seen a fair number of gunshot victims, from both sides of the barrel, and it is his job to understand the ballistic effects of projectiles on the human body - it's his friggin job.

4. self serving - you value your own opinion more highly than any other - yessir - self serving, and argumentative.

5. Tell you what bud - I have operated on a human with a gunshot wound - as has SwatSurgeon - have you? Radiography is a great profession - but , sorry dude - you are a photographer, not a friggin Radiologist (MD, who interprets your pictures, CTs, PETs, MRIs) are you? Key friggin words - your choice too, ALLIED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.

6. You put forth your credentials like you are some kind of ubermensch -
"In fact I was asked to approach the post-graduate committee to submit it as the basis for a PhD. The findings of that research will be used to provide protocols in the handling of gunshot evidence"
Lah-tee -friggin-dah, take a look at SwatSurgeon's credentials, and publications.


Dude, I'd stand in a dark alley, almost out of ammo, in war zone, with no hope of escape with any of the SF Qualified people on this site, and a lot of those that aren't, because they have 3 things I can see you truly lack: Honor, Integrity and Character.

You do not see yourself as an instigator here, but from my perspective, your attitude is what forced people on this site to tag you as such. You wanted to prove you knew more than everybody else, were more qualified, and an expert - you did it in the wrong place, these professionals have trained for years to be experts, but not spout off about it - note their titles "Quiet Professional".

Please, do an attitude check, possibly an attitude adjustment - and remember you are in somebody else's home here, as a guest.

[Team Sergeant]

Odd Job ,

I’m delighted I have your full attention.

My little sister has your credentials, she’s also a hunter. Maybe I should invite her to talk terminals ballistics? (Oh and BTW I do know my way around the hospital, I was also a “medical professional” with state and national certificates and all.;) )

You are a layperson in the field of terminal ballistics, I did not say x-rays, and you sound as if you’re the best x-ray tech in the UK, good for you. I am entertained at your self appointed expertise in the field of terminal ballistics, not radiography.

Please feel free to continue with Dr Vail, just as I will not entertain discussion concerning techniques, tactics and procedures with civilians, I will not continue an internal, external and terminal ballistics discussion with an x-ray tech.

BTW, your response, calculated, linear.

TS

[Odd Job]

@ x_sf_med

Odd Job-
1. you are a guest here, as am I, but I am slightly closer to this community than you, as I have undergone the same training as these other Special Forces soldiers - in both the Weapons and Medical specialties. Were you to come into my house, and speak to me the way you are speaking to the owners and moderators of this site, I'd toss you out on your ass.

Can I ask you to please go back to the start of this thread and see my attitude throughout. I appreciate your support for TS and the soldiers here in general, but know this: I don't ever start any unpleasantries. If you like you can check my posts on TFL too, I was posting there quite some time before I posted here.

2. You are boorish - you may know your job, and be very technically proficient - but , sorry bud - you are a boorish and insufferable prig, with the people skills of a wounded wolverine.

Well I am sorry if I come across like that to you. I have no quarrel with you and I don't know why you have that opinion of me.

3. TS has probably seen a fair number of gunshot victims, from both sides of the barrel, and it is his job to understand the ballistic effects of projectiles on the human body - it's his friggin job.

That actually supports my point. It is why I don't ever tell somebody he doesn't have the credentials to offer an opinion until I prove otherwise. If only I was afforded the same privilege.

4. self serving - you value your own opinion more highly than any other - yessir - self serving, and argumentative.

Self-serving, no. Argumentative yes, but only as regards the word 'argument' as applies to a debate, which is what this thread seeks to support. I have been wrong many a time and I admit it.

5. Tell you what bud - I have operated on a human with a gunshot wound - as has SwatSurgeon - have you? Radiography is a great profession - but , sorry dude - you are a photographer, not a friggin Radiologist (MD, who interprets your pictures, CTs, PETs, MRIs) are you? Key friggin words - your choice too, ALLIED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.

And where does it say that a radiographer is not capable of conducting research on gunshot wounds? That is the problem here, there is a perception that I can't know anything because I am a radiographer. Perhaps if you knew me better you wouldn't be so dismissive. I am a South African radiographer with South African experience. If the radiographers you have worked with appear to be incapable of the tasks I have undertaken then please don't tar me with the same brush. Why don't you care to find out what I know instead of being dismissive? Have I not provided information already in a frank and honest manner?

6. You put forth your credentials like you are some kind of ubermensch -
"In fact I was asked to approach the post-graduate committee to submit it as the basis for a PhD. The findings of that research will be used to provide protocols in the handling of gunshot evidence"
Lah-tee -friggin-dah, take a look at SwatSurgeon's credentials, and publications.

I was forced to do so by TS, and you know it. If that was my nature I would have said all of that right in the beginning when I first posted in the thread.


Dude, I'd stand in a dark alley, almost out of ammo, in war zone, with no hope of escape with any of the SF Qualified people on this site, and a lot of those that aren't, because they have 3 things I can see you truly lack: Honor, Integrity and Character.

I don't deny you would be better off in a dark alley with your comrades here. They are trained soldiers, and I am not. I am however quite offended that you say I lack honour and integrity. Character is a subjective trait. Everybody has character. If you don't like mine I can do nothing about it.

You do not see yourself as an instigator here, but from my perspective, your attitude is what forced people on this site to tag you as such. You wanted to prove you knew more than everybody else, were more qualified, and an expert - you did it in the wrong place, these professionals have trained for years to be experts, but not spout off about it - note their titles "Quiet Professional".

I don't have anything to prove, I am here trying to work out how the LeMas bullet can do all the things its makers advertise it can do, but not in ballistic gel.

Please, do an attitude check, possibly an attitude adjustment - and remember you are in somebody else's home here, as a guest.

I have answered this one before. I will extend every courtesy to the members here but I won't be treated badly and sit quietly. If that is what this forum requires me to do, it is very sad indeed.

[dr. mabuse]

Swatsurgeon, TR, TS and all others on this post.

I just caught-up reading all 8 pages of this post and am even more impressed with you all.

The amount of patience and professionalism displayed is truly humbling.

Keep up the good work. :munchin

[Odd Job]

@ TS


My little sister has your credentials, she’s also a hunter. Maybe I should invite her to talk terminals ballistics? (Oh and BTW I do know my way around the hospital, I was also a “medical professional” with state and national certificates and all. )

Yes, I would like to meet another radiographer doing gunshot research. I mean that sincerely. I would also be interested to know your experience in the hospital.

You are a layperson in the field of terminal ballistics, I did not say x-rays, and you sound as if you’re the best x-ray tech in the UK, good for you. I am entertained at your self appointed expertise in the field of terminal ballistics, not radiography.

I have medical and forensic knowledge that specifically relates to the behaviour of projectiles in the human body, and I have research to back it up, and clinical experience too. If you still think I am a layman, then I suggest you recheck the definition of layman: "a person who does not have specialized or professional knowledge of a subject"

Please feel free to continue with Dr Vail, just as I will not entertain discussion concerning techniques, tactics and procedures with civilians, I will not continue an internal, external and terminal ballistics discussion with an x-ray tech.

I am not sure what you mean by techniques and tactics as regards a thread to do with ammunition testing in pigs, but you have my word I will not stray from the subject of gunshot wounds. I have no interest in any secret information relating to special forces, I am interested in this one thing. That is why I have not posted in any other threads here. I am also not interested in internal or external ballistics but I am interested in terminal ballistics. If that is a subject you cannot discuss with me then that suits me fine, I don't recall ever initiating such a discussion with you in the first place. In fact I would like nothing better than to not have any dialogue with you at all, seeing as how I am not worthy.

BTW, your response, calculated, linear.

How can my rebuttal to you be anything but linear? Thinking 'outside the box' in that context is tantamount to being dishonest.

[x SF med]

Odd Job-
I have read this entire post multiple times, and if you will notice, since I am definitely outclassed by Dr. Vail, I kept my fingers off the key board. I did not lay into you until you spouted off as an expert and discounted all opinions but your own. I said nothing abut your attitude until it became intolerable. With every request ( at times stern) for you to change your attitude, we have been subject to a series of excuses, whines and "I know more than you's".

As to medical experience - any qualified SF Medical NCO is a primary caregiver for his team in the field, and a more than qualified trauma caregiver in any setting- do a little checking into the requirements for earning just the medical qualifiactions for an 18D (there are links on this site). During my training, back in the dark ages, we were required to work in the Emergency Room of a major military hospital on our own time - we generally chose Friday and Saturday nights, or the days when there were major Airborne operations... would you care to hazard a guess why? Try gunshot wounds, stabbings, major traumas, and acute illnesses. A good number of us have also been through full qualification as SF Weapons NCOs. Using straight logic, don't you think that there is a deep understanding of ballistic trauma to the human body? Treat us with the same respect you were treated with before you wanted to prove you were some kind of demigod - if you are good at your job, fine - don't try to throw your degrees at us - most of us do have (if not the paper, the experience of) multiple college degrees. If you would question and listen to what others say, then form cogent antitheses, that lead to understanding / synthesis - that is a formal argument. What you are doing is forming arguments ad- hominem and arguments from weakness- which have been shown to be fallacious. I will spend the time to map out your premises and conclusions into logic trees if you require them.

I don't claim to be a radiographer, but I can read an x-ray, MRI, CAT or PET scan pretty well.

I too wonder why the Lemas works, but am content to let the experts explain their findings.

[Ambush Master]

I too wonder why the Lemas works, but am content to let the experts explain their findings.

Nuff said!!! When you start to delve into the "How it works" arena, you have entered into an area that is DANGER CLOSE to TTPs!!!

The disclosure of the mechanics/physics involved could give someone all that they need to DEFEAT this round, and I do not mean politically or Jellowise, but physically, were it to be deployed (not to mention patent rights etc.)!!!

What the HELL is the problem with the evidence/results of what this projo does when it hits something that it is designed to hit?!?!?! I won't even attempt to go into what I have seen, obviously, to some, THAT doesn't count!!!

OJ,

I was still clearing fungus up (on my feet) from the jungles of Laos when you were born!! I've shot a few folks and know enough about this, from experience, to know that I would definitely give this stuff a REAL chance, as opposed to it having to pass the "Jello Test" first (which was administered by a DENTIST)!!!

Good luck!!

Edited to add: NO offence intended Saca!!
Martin

[Sacamuelas]

@ TS
Actually in the US the term X-ray Tech refers to X-ray Technologist. It is a specific title attached to those who perform medical imaging for medical diagnosis. An X-ray technician repairs X-ray equipment. In other parts of the world we are known as Radiographers and those are also protected titles. We deal in multiplanar imaging too, not just two-dimensional. Do you know what a CT scanner is?

I'm an allied medical profession and an integral and vital part of any trauma team in the civilian setting. Anyone who tries to belittle or dismiss the contribution of a radiographer to the team is quite frankly not in touch with the structure of a casualty department.

No I haven't operated on a person with a gunshot wound, have you? My research into gunshot wounds was cleared by the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. I have an ethics clearance number. I provided the material which will subsequently be published, to the head of the trauma unit in that hospital for review and his observation is that my work is very good. In fact I was asked to approach the post-graduate committee to submit it as the basis for a PhD. The findings of that research will be used to provide protocols in the handling of gunshot evidence, imaging of the gunshot victims, and guidelines for the accurate localisation and safe retrieval of projectiles in the hospital environment. If I didn't know what I was talking about I wouldn't have been invited to speak at the National Association of Forensic Radiographers and Society of Radiographers here in London. I have continuous requests for me to lecture on the subject, the latest one being from the State Pathologist in Northern Ireland. I am also involved in providing templates and guidelines for the design of 3D models to present gunshot trajectory exhibits in courts of law, also for that pathologist.

My ability to offer a reasoned debate and back it up with my real-life experience of gunshot wounds is what allows me to converse with Dr Vail (and anybody else you care to mention) about these matters.

The debate at hand is well within my bailliwick. I don't post about matters that I can't provide a constructive and real contribution to. You might well learn something from that.

Who do you think gives the trauma surgeon his figures? They usually come from the casualty nursing staff or the trauma co-ordinator. Mine come from the official trauma statistics of the Johannesburg Hospital and they were prepared by the charge nurse of area 163 (the adult trauma unit). I verified them just to be sure by going through all the registers myself. In terms of the 2002 statistics, the trauma surgeons were instructed to provide me with any clinical information I may need as regards the necessary information relating to the damage sustained by gunshot victims. By this I mean damage that was not radiologically evident and typically which meant damage found at surgery. I was present in the theatre for many of the cases and I took pictures of the damage that was found. The same applies to retrieved projectiles.
In terms of my contributiuon to the trauma surgeons at the JHB Gen Hospital, it has been substantial and valuable. We didn't have a radiologist after hours for plain film reporting, so mine was an opinion that was highly valued. In addition to that I often supplied variations in imaging protocols to detect as-yet unseen projectiles and I also found several valuable pieces of forensic evidence by examining clothing in the research. I have helped out many a trauma surgeon who missed something on the imaging or indeed missed an actual skin breach or clinical sign on a gunshot victim. You clearly don't know how a radiographer fits in to the trauma setup at a hospital...

Odd job-
While initially it was slightly amusing to read your long diatribe, it is distressing to be forced to read this desperate attempt to provide “expert” credentials by overemphasizing your professional capabilities, expertise, and training on this site. In my personal experience a radiographer (radiologic technologist in the USA) is trained to simply administer radiologic procedures after they are prescribed by a licensed practitioner. You are not an actual licensed practitioner.

In this country, you are only qualified and legally allowed to physically administer the actual radiological procedure. The actual expert interpretation and subsequent formation of a diagnosis from the films, data, and other diagnostic information you collect are strictly and expressly limited to the practitioner that prescribed the procedure. I am sure you are not suggesting in the above posts that you are actually qualified to diagnose or definitively interpret anything on the films, CT scans, MRI, etc you take by yourself. I assume you are familiar with the unethical dilemma you would find yourself in if that were the case. Please see the current Code of Ethics for the ASRT( American Society of Radiologic Technologists) :

ASRT Code of Ethics
The radiologic technologist conducts himself or herself in a professional manner, responds to patient needs and supports colleagues and associates in providing quality patient care.
The radiologic technologist acts to advance the principal objective of the profession to provide services to humanity with full respect for the dignity of mankind.
The radiologic technologist delivers patient care and service unrestricted by concerns of personal attributes or the nature of the disease or illness, and without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, creed, religion or socio-economic status.
The radiologic technologist practices technology founded upon theoretical knowledge and concepts, uses equipment and accessories consistent with the purpose for which they were designed and employs procedures and techniques appropriately.
The radiologic technologist assesses situations; exercises care, discretion and judgment; assumes responsibility for professional decisions; and acts in the best interest of the patient.
The radiologic technologist acts as an agent through observation and communication to obtain pertinent information for the physician to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of the patient and recognizes that interpretation and diagnosis are outside the scope of practice for the profession.
The radiologic technologist uses equipment and accessories, employs techniques and procedures, performs services in accordance with an accepted standard of practice and demonstrates expertise in minimizing radiation exposure to the patient, self and other members of the health care team.
The radiologic technologist practices ethical conduct appropriate to the profession and protects the patient's right to quality radiologic technology care.
The radiologic technologist respects confidences entrusted in the course of professional practice, respects the patient's right to privacy and reveals confidential information only as required by law or to protect the welfare of the individual or the community.

I and the rest of the practitioners do appreciate the assistance from techs such as yourself in obtaining high quality images that enable us to obtain the information we need to form a diagnosis and extrapolate the required conclusions to predict prognosis and develop treatment plans. Most radiation techs I have dealt with have been professional and helpful, but all of them have been cognizant of and aware of the limitations of their level of education and expertise in the overall treatment spectrum. I must admit that I have never heard a licensed radiographer self-promote his/herself with such sensationalized hype similar to what I have read in your above posts. I can only assume that you are a younger man than I initially thought when I read your earlier, less boastful posts. With more maturity, you may find your lane in this world. For your coworkers and more importantly the other practitioner’s patients that you work with in your hospital, I hope this comes true.

It is positive that you are interested in this field of ballistic research. By your own admission, your expertise other than being a regular technologist seems to consist of submitting a proposal for a study, taking a lot of photos of trauma team members and patients, taking diagnostic films of and examining clothing worn by trauma patients, and having an administrator tell a few trauma surgeons to help you obtain and record post-operative metrics for your project. Of course, you did point out a few rare examples of when you performed functions outside your actual realm of expertise. I assume this is an attempt to display your above average skill set compared to a regular tech. While in your mind this may seem like it would sound impressive to us, it simply sounds like an attempt to obfuscate your actual expertise in medicine and/or ballistics coming from an apparently unfulfilled and seemingly insecure tech.

Please refrain from posting any more unless you can positively contribute to the actual topic. Comments derogatory to Admins, Quiet Professionals, or moderators of this site will not be tolerated. To display a tolerance for opposing viewpoints, your previous remarks directed at specific people have been overlooked so far. If you wish to remain engaged in this debate on this site, do not continue this trend toward unprofessional commentary as a guest. You have been allowed to "prove" your expertise or lack thereof in the above posts. No more commentary is required. Everyone on this site now has enough information about you and your background in your own words to formulate his/her own conclusion as to the validity of your observations.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Does anyone have any proof that LeMas ammunition does not perform in live tissue as stated in the report posted in the original posts in this thread? If so, I would like to see it please.

Until then, I don't see the need for continuing discussion. Nothing other than results in live tissue were reported. Nothing to the contrary has been posted that I can see.

Talk of radiographs, technician credentials and wounds in South Africa are not germane to the discussion unless those wounds were caused by LeMas ammunition.

If anyone wishes to discuss the relative merits of X-ray technicians, feel free to start a thread in the Med Forum. If you wish to discuss round performance in gelatin, feel free to start another thread in this forum. This thread is reference the performance of LeMas ammunition in live tissue.

The dicussion will stay on topic or the unrelated posts will be removed.

[CoLawman]

After watching this thread continue to grow my curiosity finally got the best of me. I could not figure out why SWAT Surgeon would be offering opinions on Lamaze ( yep I read it as Lamaze not Lemas) Anyone besides me have to attend Lamaze classes?

Anyway I have just spent the last two hours reading and rereading the the threads and now I want to record my observations.

1. One it is not a thesis from SWAT Surgeon on birthing techniques.

2. There are some very very bright individuals that are members here.

3. Team Sergeant has been used by me personally in two homicide investigations involving death by firearms as an expert. He is impressive!

4. I have personally been involved in the investigation of some 200 homicides and exponentially more assaults by firearms. And never once did an x-ray tech testify in place of the surgeons or forensic pathologists. In fact I do not recall an instance where the testimony of a surgeon or forensic pathologist was even complimented by the testimony of a radiologist.

5. In the United States a radiologist would not have had such unencumbered access to medical records. In fact, I would assume that there would be some serious internal investigations if a hospital administration learned that patient records were being posted on the Internet.

6. Dr. Sac beat me to the punch and was far more eloquent and succinct.

7. Time to get out of here before TR makes some crack about fat cops and donuts.

[Odd Job]

@ X_Sf_med

I did not lay into you until you spouted off as an expert and discounted all opinions but your own. I said nothing abut your attitude until it became intolerable. With every request ( at times stern) for you to change your attitude, we have been subject to a series of excuses, whines and "I know more than you's".

Can you please tell me where I discounted every opinion but my own? If that is the case, what is my purpose here, to waste peoples' time? Please give me a bit more credit than that.

As to medical experience - any qualified SF Medical NCO is a primary caregiver for his team in the field, and a more than qualified trauma caregiver in any setting- do a little checking into the requirements for earning just the medical qualifiactions for an 18D (there are links on this site). During my training, back in the dark ages, we were required to work in the Emergency Room of a major military hospital on our own time - we generally chose Friday and Saturday nights, or the days when there were major Airborne operations... would you care to hazard a guess why? Try gunshot wounds, stabbings, major traumas, and acute illnesses. A good number of us have also been through full qualification as SF Weapons NCOs. Using straight logic, don't you think that there is a deep understanding of ballistic trauma to the human body?

I fully agree, and if those certain members want to argue with me based upon their experience that is fine, in fact that is what I want, a discussion. Nowhere do I say any of you don't have the werewithall to discuss this matter. Yet instead of discussing it, there are certain members here who resort to derogatory and derisive attacks on me and and my profession.

Treat us with the same respect you were treated with before you wanted to prove you were some kind of demigod - if you are good at your job, fine - don't try to throw your degrees at us - most of us do have (if not the paper, the experience of) multiple college degrees.

Sir, you are all afforded respect from me BY DEFAULT. That is what I have been trying to tell you. I don't think I am any kind of demigod, SS posted statistics instead of addressing the questions I had to do with LeMas, and I also posted statistics. I am not throwing any qualifications at you: in fact it is my qualifaction that seems to be the bone of contention here. I have experience just like you and all I ask is that you hear me out instead of branding me a 'photographer' and dismissing what I have to say.

If you would question and listen to what others say, then form cogent antitheses, that lead to understanding / synthesis - that is a formal argument. What you are doing is forming arguments ad- hominem and arguments from weakness- which have been shown to be fallacious. I will spend the time to map out your premises and conclusions into logic trees if you require them.

I am questioning and listening, in fact I am getting no answers to my questions, as is plainly obvious to anyone who has been following this thread form the start. I find it quite amusing that you mention 'ad-hominem' when it is I who is the victim of ad hominem attacks. Show me where I am guilty of this. Show me where my arguments are fallacious.

I don't claim to be a radiographer, but I can read an x-ray, MRI, CAT or PET scan pretty well.

Yeah, and if I afforded you the same credibility as you have afforded me I would say you have no business looking at any medical imaging because you are nothing more than a field medic. (Please note I do not claim that, I just want you to know how it feels to be treated this way).

[Odd Job]

@ Sacamuelas

1) Nowhere have I claimed to be a clinician. I do not diagnose, I do not operate, I am not a doctor. I am well aware of regulations pertaining to my field. I am registered as a radiographer in SA, UK, NZ and AU and I know the rules. By the way the pertinent rules relating to X-ray Techs in the US are governed more by the ARRT than by ASRT. There are 35 States that make ARRT certification mandatory before working as a RAd Tech, and of the remaining 15 the hospital usually makes it a requirement if it is a large academic hospital. I am not a US Rad Tech. I have never worked there and I am not registered there.

2) There appears to be far greater scope for professional development amongst radiographers in the UK than in the US. I tell you this for background purposes only, so you can see the difference. In the UK, there are radiographer-led studies and radiographers (provided they have passed the relevant course) CAN report on imaging. For example there are radiographer-led Barium studies and there are radiographer casualty reports. Also happening right now is radiographer-led CT pain management (injections) and Tesio line insertions. We are allowed to do much more here than your X-ray techs appear to be allowed to do in the US. This may be the source of this whole disdain at the fact that I am a radiographer/X-ray Tech. Next time I am in Colorado I will take a tour of one of the large hospitals and find out what the general view of Rad Techs is. I am beginning to think that they are less valued and utilized in the USA.

3) You don't have to be a doctor to conduct research into gunshot wounds. I wouldn't have been allowed to conduct that research if the head of the trauma unit and the research committee at the university didn't think I had a viable protocol and didn't think my background was appropriate. I certainly don't claim that a layman could have done it, but there is room at the table for an allied health worker in certain circumstances. I don't want the whole table (as some here claim I do) I just want a seat at the table since I have earned it.

4) If I am 'out of my depth' here, why is it that cetain individuals here must choose to attack me and my profession instead of debunking my material? Surely it must be easy to poke holes in my arguments if I don't have the wherewithall to contribute?

5) I am disappointed that you tried to belittle my research by saying that I took a handful of photos and followed a trauma surgeon around. That is not so. At the risk of being accused of 'spouting off' again, I have been working on this project for 4 years now and I am still not finished, I am close though. If you have a genuine interest in my research I can forward to you an outline of it. I have nothing to hide. Currently one of the top guys from the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners is checking one of my draft manuscripts in the US. Another one is with the Trauma head (a world-renowned professor) at the JHB hospital. I have asked them to be very critical of my work and I have had very positive feedback up to now. The same can be said of the feedback I got from a trauma surgeon here in the UK. I don't do anything in a vaccuum. I fully acknowledge the dependence I have have had on medical staff and technical staff (forensics) in the pursuit of this research. But that does not mean the research has no value or that I have irrelevant experience. This research has been done. I have the experience from my years at the hospital, and I have my research data. I cannot delete that, and you cannot ignore it. If you were critical of the content of my research, that would be another matter, but saying that I am not qualified to have done that research or offer it here as material for discussion is not fair.

6) There are technical aspects of radiology to do with the appearances of projectiles and projectile fragments that have not been published or described yet. The same can be said for a comprehensive model to track projectiles from the time of the shooting to the time of patient discharge or patient death. That is my primary research aim. A trauma surgeon could have done it, or a radiologist could have done it, but they haven't. So I did it. These are valuable findings and they fall squarely in the field of terminal ballistics. If you would like me to provide you with a sample case from my file, I will. Then you can tell me if I shouldn't be talking about the subject.

7) My attitude: sir, I honestly don't intend to come across rude or disrespectful. And I can't work out how it is you would label me such and not TS. It may be a cultural thing, I don't know. But that is how I deal with attacks on me. There is a definite difference between how TS speaks to me and how many others have. Have I not been polite to Dr Vail himself? Or Mr Bulmer? I have addressed people exactly as they have addressed me. If I come across rude, then it is a mirror for the precursor to that post. I ask you to try to look at my posts objectively and in the context in which they stand and tell me I am really such a bad person.

Lastly, thanks for a measured post. I appreciate it even though you are also dismissive of my contributions.

[Odd Job]

@ CoLawman

5. In the United States a radiologist would not have had such unencumbered access to medical records. In fact, I would assume that there would be some serious internal investigations if a hospital administration learned that patient records were being posted on the Internet.

Check this link, it explains the Privacy Rule and HIPAA:

http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pr_08.asp

This applies not just to radiologists but to all hospital staff. The key here is anonymisation and fair/justifiable use of material. For your information, my research was not conducted in the US, it was conducted in SA. And I was given strict rules on how any images or patient information could be used publically. The Ethics Committee decides what I am allowed to do in the hospital. They even told me what I was allowed to ask the patient and what I was not. Ironically I was not allowed to ask them questions that I might have asked if I was not conducting research. The bottom line is: I have not distributed or made available any records or information that could be used to identify an individual. When I did the research I assigned each patient a number. When I was finished with the follow-ups I deleted the names and just kept the numbers. I was able to do this because I don't require long term followup on these patients. In addition to the limitations imposed on me by the Ethics Committee, I agreed to digitally extract any birthmarks, tattoos, moles or other identifying marks form any images that are to be published, whether electronically or in print. And I have adhered to the hospital's privacy policy when posting articles or cases on the internet.

As for expert testimony, radiographers are usually only called to court when there is some question about the technical aspects of the imaging or the circumstances surrounding the imaging. A typical example is in a Non-Accidental Injury paediatric series where there is a question about the L or R marking of a limb.
I agree that we wouldn't be involved in a homicide investigation under normal circumstances. However with the advent of widespread digital imaging in 3D and the use of surface modelling to replace physical models in court, there is a push to use 3D representations instead of actual photographs, when discussing possible trajectories in court. These have traditionally been done by artists who work from photographs under the direction of a clinician but where biplanar imaging exists the data can be more easily and accurately assembled into a model by somebody who understands medical imaging. I see a definite role for a radiographer there. In all other instances radiographs may be enhanced and/or manipulated for the specific purpose of demonstrating a feature that has forensic significance. That stems from the fact that while the imaging may have been adequate for clinical reasons at the time, it is not ideal for the forensic application. The converse is also true: images rejected for being undiagnostic in a clinical sense can still be utilized for a forensic purpose and in those cases the radiographer may be called to explain the technical aspects of such an unorthodox view.

[Odd Job]

@ NDD

Talk of radiographs, technician credentials and wounds in South Africa are not germane to the discussion unless those wounds were caused by LeMas ammunition.

I have a genuine interest in the radiographs of the LeMas testing, because by the advertised effect and properties of the projectile, the radiographic appearances should be quite remarkable compared to similar ammunition. I would like to see the X-rays of the LeMas tests, that is surely on topic.

Edit: I apologize if the thread has leaned towards me in the past few days. It is not something I wanted and not something I can control.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Yes, asking to see the radiographs of LeMas ammunition is indeed pertinent to the discussion at hand. In that vein, please do carry on.

And let's keep the discussion on topic.

[MRF54]

I have been following this 'thread' in a variety of forums on the www. It has gotten more and more entertaining... and annoying but, I don't think it should go away!

I have a few questions:
1. Is it legal and/or professional for a full-time USG employee of a Govt testing organization to openly discuss on a privately owned forum(s):
A. Testing procedures,
B. Outcomes of a limited (now perceived as biased) test,
C. Opinions of the product,
D. Opinions and accusations of the vendor?

2. Has a vendor's rights been violated when the lead person with the USG organization personally pursues (and rallies public support) to assassinate a vendors reputation and product? Why not just say it didn't pass the test and then just leave it alone?

3. Is there any type of oversite or enforcement for this type of behavior?

4. Why don't the nay sayers rally here at PS like they do everywhere else?

Now, I have a few things to say...
First off, I am not a doctor, a scientist, a LeMas guy, a drug addict, a medic, a range fairy, a computer geek, a slacker, a chump, a radiographer-thingy, a quack, a poser, a stunt man, a forensic expert, a dentist, a seal, a shark, a carnie, or a movie star - but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Basically, I'm a nobody with a little bit of knowledge on the subject.

Years ago I was made aware of a mysterious magic golden BB called LeMas. To say that I was skeptical would be an understatement. I thought it was just another vendor trying to push their product on us to endorse, yada yada yada. I rcvd some of their 9mm, 5.56mm, and .45cal to do an eval/test - I wasn't really motivated to do anything with it. Well, we had a wild 'out of its mind' great-dane that had showed up at work. This dog was terrorizing other animals we had on the site and damaging some property. We called the humane society and they never showed up - we even tried feeding it. Please note that I am a dog lover (not romantically). A few days later, low and behold this great-dane decided to get territorial with us so, I decided we should just kill it and feed the carcass to the turtles - I'm not going to allow anyone to get bit by a diseased k9. Well, one of the guys grabbed an MP5SD and a mag off the desk (we had 45's and M4's too) and out we went. The dog charged us. In full stride, the fellow with the SD cranked off one round and hit the 'devil-dog' (semper fido) right in the upper part of his front left leg on angle not perpendicular. The dog fell over dead. Everyone just sort of stood there dumbfounded. The guy with the SD actually looked at the weapon and said "WTF?" We cautiously moved up to the animal expecting it was playing possum to lure us in - nope it was D-E-A-D, dead. One of the guys cut back the skin to check out the wound (not very scientific huh?). The entrance wound on the skin was a typical 9mm puncture but there was a hole about the size of a racket ball in it's rib cage and the insides looked like regurgitated MRE (C-rats for the FOG's). I immediately asked to see the mag from the SD. He had loaded up LeMas earlier because he thought it was just some cheap ammo (packaging). Needless to say, this event got my (actually everyone's) attention but I was still very very skeptical. Again, this was several years ago.

As a result of this event, I got serious about finding out more info about what this ammo could and could not do. I would be willing to bet that I have shot, tested, and killed more critters than anyone with this ammo - except maybe the LeMas guys. I have killed beavers, coyotes, and wild hogs et al, in abundance with it. You have not lived until a 200+lb sow (that's a chick pig with teats for you city guys: 18D's no whacking off) is charging you and you can drop her with 2 poorly placed shots from an off the shelf G19. But my experience with this ammunition is not limited to self rescue from terrorist hogs or the eradication of destructive varmints. I guess I've shot just about everything with this stuff EXCEPT another human - any volunteers? Anyone, anyone... Bueller?

I have been fortunate to be part of multiple legal live tissue tests and barrier penetration tests of the few years I have known about the ammo. I think I know more about this round from an end user perspective than just about anyone out there. Hell, I even have some whacky theories on where the magic BB actually gets it's mojo. But I will not discuss that here.

The sampling numbers are vast: live tissue, ballistic wax stuff, and jello. It hasn't just been a couple of kapines - FYI: all animal use protocols were used under a USG issued and certified license. I have participated in numerous side by side controlled comparisons of 9mm, .45cal, 5.56mm (including varmint rounds), 7.62x39mm, 7.62x51mm, and 300WM under varying conditions and with various barriers. FYI - when Doc Syd gathered his data it was so damn cold we had to put out a space heater... outside... it was miserable. At that particular test, competition, and demonstration there were several physicians, 18D/PA's, veterinarians, and active duty combat (recent) vets. Everybody participated. Everybody saw everything, Everybody left with the same conclusion. When I am fortunate enough to be included in these tests it is like ground hog day... except the temperature is always on one end or the other of the spectrum.

Why should I care about this ammo and what it does?
Although I don't wear a uniform anymore and have absolutely no stake in LeMas whatsoever, I am still very connected to the community in a variety of ways. If I new I was going to go out and get it on again I would want the most lethal round I could carry. I think our service people deserve the absolute best in everything. And it makes me sick to see mandarin politics, bias, and immaturity impede the process. You have to see this stuff to believe it and it will freak you out. To the man, not one person that I have seen exposed to LeMas did not say 2 of these 4 statements: "WTF is that?", "The badguys don't have this do they? Cause I do not want to get shot with this stuff!", "Why are we not using this?", and/or "How do I get some?"

Does it really work?
Yes, exactly the way it was designed - this stuff has MOJO, 'yo. As a matter of fact it is the only round that I am aware of that is AP, stays in the subject (head, chest, extremity), and has the exact same performance every single time in the same area on different subjects even through various barriers. If I hit you with one round to the chest you are going to die, quickly (i.e. really fu@king fast). An extremity, you had better immediately tourniquet or you bleed out. Plus, the round comes apart in microns so it is impossible to clean out. if you get hit in an extremity go up a joint and amputate. HOWEVER, the ammo is a not a do-all round. It is short range AP stuff. I would carry it on urban operations w/o a 2nd thought. I can give you the good news at 250m with the 5.56mm round - if you're past that I have other options to lay down some hate with. A typical 9mm wound looks like I shot you point blank with 00-buck or a blast injury and it just zips through 3a soft and hard armor.

What about the jello testing? Here's my hypothesis...
The current issue ammunition performance is to unpredictable to test in live tissue effectively. There are too many variables and it is unreliable to gain significant measurable, replicate-able results. I have seen this when I have been a part of live tissue testing with these rounds - you just never know what they are going to do. LeMas is different. It always does the same thing whether it is through a 3a vest, rifle plates, glass, t-shirt, or bare epidermis. But it doesn't perform like a conventional round in ballistic gelatin... or does it? No, it's not just like a conventional round. If you do a jello test make sure you x-ray the block before and after... you are in for a surprise! No, it's not dust - it's thousands of metal shards that just gave you a bad organ day.

Understanding why it works isn't really that important to me. Knowing what it is made of or how it is made isn't really that important to me. Maybe they feed them to Do-Do birds and as it passes through the digestive process it receives magic bullet mojo based on the linear dispersion rate on the summer equinox only if there is full moon at high tide with power-puff girls assembling them with chemical 'X'... If it works, I reallllllly don't care how or why. I haven't cared about the stuff I've used before why is this any different?

You cannot argue with arrogance but you can demonstrate what is proper. Where has the integrity gone to with regards to this ammo and why is no one holding anyone accountable for their unprofessional actions? There has been a loss of mutual respect and dignity on this issue. It needs to be resolved so the community can benefit.

Unconventional warriors need unconventional leadership (we have to be lead because we are unmanageable), unconventional gear, and unconventional ammunition. Imagine a controlled pair from your M4 or pistol literally dropping a guy unconscious or dead on the spot every single time... wherever you hit him... even if the boogie man is wearing body armor, a magnum PI shirt, or behind steel plates.

I have yet to meet, read, or see anything that disproves what the round actually does in living tissue in every single test that I have been a part of. There is a ton of conjecture, accusations, and hyperbole. I have been told it doesn't work - it's not lethal. I have also been told it is too lethal and thus not useable - seriously. On that note, I do not think this ammo should be for joe.

I firmly believe that more testing does need to be conducted on other variables but what it does to living tissue is indisputable. But who cares what I think, I'm a nobody! Well, I've got to go keep my pimp hand strong.

[Kyobanim]

Great post MRF54.

[Five-O]

MRF54,

If I may be so bold....your post is the post the other lay people (like myself) have been waiting for in this thread. Thank you.

[CoLawman]

BRAVO MRF54!

[KevinB]

I've seen it work -and - I've velocity tested it (its fricken hot)

We had it pressure tested but no-one ever got back to me - but I surmize it above SAAMI and NATO pressure specs.

FWIW I never got better than 3-4MOA with the older stuff out of M4's and similar.

Back to the dicussion

:munchin

[Five-O]

MRF54,
Just curious. Why, in your experience, should LeMas ammo be limited to SOF types and not be issued to joe?

[MRF54]

I've seen it work -and - I've velocity tested it (its fricken hot)

We had it pressure tested but no-one ever got back to me - but I surmize it above SAAMI and NATO pressure specs.

FWIW I never got better than 3-4MOA with the older stuff out of M4's and similar.

Back to the dicussion

:munchin

Yes it is hot - smokin hot.

I recently had a chance to fire the LeMas 45 subgun round out of a XD45 completely stock right out of the box.... 2100fps/4''group at 30m/recoil was similar to a G23.

I shot the same setup even more recently through alum3A into live tissue at 10m/same velocity/1.5inch group/2rounds/.16split...I think you can guess what it did to the kapine!

Which rounds did you saami/nato pressure spec, how, and can you say for whom - we might have met before? I've shot a bunch (best guess is well over 1K in both rifle and pistol) and never had any weapons issues. If you have any definitve data I would really like to see it, if that is possible. I don't want to any of my guys hurt.
FYI - I am private sector.

[APLP]

I've seen it work -and - I've velocity tested it (its fricken hot)

We had it pressure tested but no-one ever got back to me - but I surmize it above SAAMI and NATO pressure specs.

FWIW I never got better than 3-4MOA with the older stuff out of M4's and similar.

Back to the dicussion

:munchin

The Le Mas 5.56 SRAP LW round is manufactured with both a long barrel and short barrel pressure curve. It would be stupid to knowingly pressure test the optimized short barrel 1/7 twist ammunition in a non ported 1/7 twist test barrel length that the ammunition was specifically designed not to function from. One might conclude that anyone who had knowingly conducted such inappropriate testing methodologies of the ammunition to further disinformation and personal agenda would most definitely be a prick.

It was once reported to me by a testing facility that the Le Mas 9mm AP CQB bullet demonstrated pressure data at over twice the structural design limit of the cartridge yet could not explain why the ammunition when fired from a stock Glock-17 with no sign of a high pressure loading.

But it was always funny to watch the Le Mas critics scurry to recover with bewildered facial expressions fired Le Mas 5.56 cases during the many Armed Forces Journal live fire demo's at Blackwater.

[MRF54]

MRF54,
Just curious. Why, in your experience, should LeMas ammo be limited to SOF types and not be issued to joe?

That's a good question 5-0, thanks for asking. All I can give is my opinion, OK.

LeMas is still what I would call a speciality ammo. Not really mission specific but more like a controlled item. Basic weapons handling skills are... well, basic.

Something you might not be aware of are the number of AD/ND's that occur in normal units. Or what about gear adrift. What if a link here, a mag there were to be stolen, lost, or sold. This ammo is so powerful it needs to have greater accountability and advanced weapons skills. You don't issue something this devastating to large numbers of people who's only training with a weapon has been BRM and an annual weapons qual.

I am not making a derogatory statement about the training of our nation's military. Simply thinking how frightful it would be to face a private with a 249 who after acknowledging me decides to light my vehicle up any way. I guess it's part maturity and part training. You can't fake endurance or experience.

The next question, if I might be so bold, would be then who is this ammo for? What do you think? My opinion, can only be mine - but man do I like to share.

I am seriously interested in knowing why you might think it should (or could) be for large conventional units and if not then who? This is not a debate or even worse, an argument, this is only a thread on LeMas on a forum. What's your take on this stuff?

[Team Sergeant]

I've seen it work -and - I've velocity tested it (its fricken hot)

We had it pressure tested but no-one ever got back to me - but I surmize it above SAAMI and NATO pressure specs.

FWIW I never got better than 3-4MOA with the older stuff out of M4's and similar.

Back to the dicussion

:munchin

FWIW most people cannot shoot a weapon straight.

3-4 MOA at what distances? Have you ever shot under 3-4 MOA at (place distance here). What are your rifle marksmanship credentials? Trained military sniper or boy scout weapons instructor. You get my point I'm sure.

Now that you have peaked my interest I'll go and shoot some LeMas at what ever distance you post and get back to you concerning MOA.

( I will also shut up if you are the Canadian Sniper that made the world record shot on the terrorist a few years back.;) )

TS
Graduate, Special Forces Sniper School.

[MRF54]

TS, good point. We always joke with each other and say that it was 'the jerk behind the trigger.'

The good news for the marksmanship impaired/challenged is that this stuff is going to kill your enemy anyway, but it is not an excuse for poor marksmanship. For normal combat stuff all you've got to do is get some meat. I never had the patience or the desire to feed the chiggers and look through a periscope. I much prefer the 30second hero routine. Besides, assaulters have better looking gear and the chicks dig it... Ok, ok, I couldn't do the math w/o taking off my boots.

Earlier this morning I posted some questions, these were serious questions, not statements. Here they are again:

I have a few questions:
1. Is it legal and/or professional for a full-time USG employee of a Govt testing organization to openly discuss on a privately owned forum(s):
A. Testing procedures,
B. Outcomes of a limited (now perceived as biased) test,
C. Opinions of the product,
D. Opinions and accusations of the vendor?

2. Has a vendor's rights been violated when the lead person with the USG organization personally pursues (and rallies public support) to assassinate a vendors reputation and product? Why not just say it didn't pass the test and then just leave it alone?

3. Is there any type of oversite or enforcement for this type of behavior?

4. Why don't the nay sayers rally here at PS like they do everywhere else?

[KevinB]

Nope did not make the shot -- but I do know one end of a rifle from another.;)
I've shot with CWO(3) Haugen (ret.) when he was in Lewis...
and I dicked with Gene Econ's tgt during a Police Sniper course :D
(years later it dawns on him what we did)

I had some early LandWarfare 5.56mm - Stan had said that since it that lot they have improved the accuracy. I shot it at 100m and 200m from the prone from a KAC SR16 16" midlength with Douglas barrel -- the carbine is submoa with some ammuntion. it chrono'd ~10 shot avg at 3800 fps out of the 16" bbl.

I did say it was my humble opinion that the ammuntion was over pressur spec -- HOWEVER I have shot it both suppressed and unsuppressed and do not beleive that it is unstable or dangerous. No idea on the agencies methodology for testing pressure.

I did not get enough 7.62N for accuracy testing one guy zero'd it with his rifle and it was then used for live test.

I have never been able to chrono the 9mm (I ended up mixing Ranger SXT in a Sig mag to see if the chrono was buggered - no dice onyl thr SXt tracked in the chrony) that was repeated at different dates (no idea on that one) it struck the tgt fine...


I recall several times stating the ammo works.

[Peregrino]

I've been out of town for a while but it was nice to check here and find a lively discussion with quality input. MRF54 - I would like to see your questions answered too.

Now for a minor redirect. Does anybody have the money to run a study along the lines Odd Job has proposed? I too would like to see a direct comparison (conducted IAW acceptable scientific protocols) between the current ammo and the LeMas ammo in live tissue. We can follow up with a BBQ so interested parties could discuss the results. There ought to be plenty of quality meat left on the control (shot w/conventional ammo) carcasses for a really good feast. We would have to make sure ALL of the guns & ammo (of every type) was secured before the beer got served though.

Just because OJ comes across to our American sensibilities as obnoxious and condescending doesn't mean he's out there flapping. (And the QP title should mean we know how to work with "difficult" personalities.) There's nothing wrong with the science he is suggesting. At least nothing my lay person's limited intellectual capacity can discern. We can even get some real MDs and DVMs (after all we would be shooting pigs) to interpret the results. Unlike some of the others questioning the efficacy of the LeMas ammo, all he's asking for is a properly conducted imaging study to document the effects. Based on what I've seen personally and heard from A1 sources about the ammo, I think it's redundant (superfluous) but who am I to pass up the opportunity to waste ammo and party with the good guys all in the name of a worthy cause.

This gets back to my earlier point - it's all about which one is better, the LeMas or the current issue ammo. Detractors are attacking the LeMas for a variety of reasons, IMO mostly based on pet theories, personality conflicts, and (apparent) marketing hyperbole. They aren't even mentioning comparitive live tissue studies. As far as I'm concerned that's disingenuous.

Here's part of my expanded argument for a more lethal round: The issue for any combat engagement is fast, accurate fire that rapidly incapacitates the intended target. Better training and optical sighting systems have significantly improved target acquisition and engagement, especially at intermediate ranges (I like to think of intermediate as 50-150 meters with the carbine). After learning the fundamentals of marksmanship, training has usually concentrated on speed and group size - learn to shoot small groups, speed up until group size gets too large, tighten shot group maintaining speed, repeat. Issue ammo seems to work best when the group is 2-3 rounds in a 4-6 inch center of mass circle (Army study). With good training, most soldiers should be able to do that in 1.5 - 4 seconds depending on range to the target. If the claimed lethality of the LeMas ammo results in the same degree of incapicitation if 2 rounds fall within a 9-12 inch center of mass circle, there is a significant time savings realized from the reduced accuracy requirement. Tenths of a second are achievable, even hundredths of a second can be significant when the target is shooting back. Bottom Line - the Islamofascists will only get better as natural selection and Coalition marksmanship weeds out the stupid ones. Better adversaries deserve better tools for sending them to their martyr's reward. If the ammo does what has been claimed, getting it where it will do some good is important (I agree with MRF54's caveats about units of issue).

My .02 FWIW - Peregrino
(And I even broke it up into paragraphs for Kyo :p )

[x SF med]

I second Peregrino's last thoughts, a more accurate, deadlier round in combat is good. If the LeMas works, that's the main brunt of the argument, why it works is of secondary importance, and trade secrets are trade secrets for a reason- especially in a capitalist economy.

[MRF54]

KB,
Well, there is a really good chance our paths have crossed in the past. I know Mike Haugen fairly well and owe him for getting me out of several pickles.

>>I recall several times stating the ammo works.<< How you feel about LeMas is your opinion. I apologize if my questions seemed to infer that you didn't like or believe in the product.

ALCON: I am not looking for an argument on this topic. I have some questions. I also have a lot of experience testing the ammo and using it to hunt with. My purpose is to explore some of the issues as a professional who is interested in healthy productive discussion (isn't this a forum?). I openly agree to disagree with anyone as long as they reciprocate the same respect.

[Five-O]

I am seriously interested in knowing why you might think it should (or could) be for large conventional units and if not then who? This is not a debate or even worse, an argument, this is only a thread on LeMas on a forum. What's your take on this stuff?[/QUOTE]

MRF54,
I didn't ask the question based on opposition to the round being issued strictly to SOF. Obviously the schools/trigger time in SOF units far exceeds that of conventional units. Reading this thread and the accounts of various QP's, to me anyway, confirms the round is absolutely devastating. My thought was if the round is that good, lets get it approved and distributed to the infantry BN's and spread the joy to the bad guys.

[APLP]

Nope did not make the shot -- but I do know one end of a rifle
I had some early LandWarfare 5.56mm - Stan had said that since it that lot they have improved the accuracy. I shot it at 100m and 200m from the prone from a KAC SR16 16" midlength with Douglas barrel -- the carbine is submoa with some ammuntion. it chrono'd ~10 shot avg at 3800 fps out of the 16" bbl.

I have never been able to chrono the 9mm (I ended up mixing Ranger SXT in a Sig mag to see if the chrono was buggered - no dice onyl thr SXt tracked in the chrony) that was repeated at different dates (no idea on that one) it struck the tgt fine.

Howdy Kevin,
You know that you are still welcome to ammo anytime. If the KAC 16" was a 1/7 twist the LW bullet at 3800 fps would have not been stable. Our estimated maxium RPM for a stable trajectory in the 5.56 LW bullet is about 365,000 RPM. If the rifle barrel you fired was a 1/8 or 1/9 then the bullet should have been stable. The ammunition you tested was optimized for the 10.5-14.5 inch 1/7 twist barrels and a seperate pressure curve is provided for the longer 1/7 twist barrels.

The short barrel LW round when fired from the 10.5 inch 1/7 turns 3,025 fps, 11.5 inch 1/7 turns 3400 fps, 14.5 inch turns 3450 fps.

The short barrel LW round when fired from the 10.5 inch 1/9 turns 2750 fps, but when fired from the 14.5 1/9 turns 3550 fps.

The short barrel LW round when fired from a 20 inch non ported 20 inch 1/7 twist barrel will not be stable and demonstrate excessive pressure to include blown primers. All of our clients are briefed on these performance parameters and limitations per bullet design as they are with respect to the comparative hard amor and tissue destruction performance.

The short barrel LW round when fired from an operational 20 inch 1/9 twist barrel will turn in excess of 3850 fps with a stable trajectory and no signs of excess pressure.

The Le Mas AP 9mm when fired from a Glock-17 will turn 1940 fps, from the MP-5 2225 fps, the Colt 10.5 inch 2300 fps.

[NousDefionsDoc]

but I do know one end of a rifle from another.;)

I don't know Kev, but I know people that do and have had "chats" with them about him. I will confirm he knows which end the bullet comes out of.

Good to see you here Kev.

Sneaky

[swatsurgeon]

Odd Job,
I need to have a part of this discussion put to bed.....the x-rays of the ammo explain the dispersion pattern not the lethality if you are trying to compare to conventional ammunition x-rays. I have alot of x-rays of people shot in the head, chest, face, abdomen, extremities that are very much alive and I can put 2 x-rays side by side (one patient alive, the other one dead) and it tells nothing of the wound ballistic characteristics other than a 2 dimensional idea of where the bullet is.
The idea of using x-rays to determine anything else is negated by the fact that we don't have 64 slice CT scan images to see all of the tiny metallic fragments (dust) disperses in the tissues in a manner that reveals useful information. The x-rays I do have of the LeMas ammo simply shows wide scatter of the particles...you need to see and touch the tissue to really appreciate the effects that are germain to this discussion. X-rays are again a small piece of the puzzle that make up the entire picture of the LeMas injury pattern in tissue.

ss

the pic I attached...guess: alive or dead

[KevinB]

NDD, Reaper showed me the site a while back - just have not been posting or surfing much.


Stan - roger that - do you have loads for longer barrels in a 1:7?
Any luck on the OTM versions? Is a 6.8 version feasible?
Still a small world eh?

While I like the rounds - I still have concerns about effective range (all my live shoots have been under 150m) Has any longer range accuracy work been done (out to 400-500m and what is the terminal effects at that range).


Also anythough of using this as an anti-vehicle round?

[APLP]

NDD, Reaper showed me the site a while back - just have not been posting or surfing much.


Stan - roger that - do you have loads for longer barrels in a 1:7?
Any luck on the OTM versions? Is a 6.8 version feasible?
Still a small world eh?

While I like the rounds - I still have concerns about effective range (all my live shoots have been under 150m) Has any longer range accuracy work been done (out to 400-500m and what is the terminal effects at that range).


Also anythough of using this as an anti-vehicle round?

-Affirmative on the LW rounds for longer 1/7 twist barrels. The 20 inch 1/7 will do 3550 fps. Other option is a 1/8 or 1/9 twist 18 inch like Wes builds that will do 3850 fps and hold less than 2 MOA. The 14.5 inch 1/9 turns what the LW does with the 20 inch 1/7 long barrel pressure rounds do. Was the 16 inch you referenced in your earlier post, a 1/7?

-Nobody is interested in the AP OTM rounds, so they just sit.

-The 6.8 SPC is the not the case we would pick to build a heavier bullet around for a lot of reasons. the COTS non DOD bullets are pretty damn good in tissue, but not much room to build the same type of AP with non over penetration performance our 5.56 or 7.62 runs with. The DOD JAG approved 6.8 SPC rounds have no hard AP and seem to over penetrate live tissue from short barrels pretty consistently. The new "green tip" 6.8 rounds won't have hard AP capability.

-I would take the 10.5 inch 1/7 upper with LW at 150 yards before I would take the M-855 or M-262 fired from a 20 inch barrel any day in live tissue. You know you have been invited at least a couple of times to see for your self. We really don't work with anyone who cares about farther out than 150 yards with the 10.5 inch guns. The M-4 1/7 is fairly equal to the performance of the 10.5 inch from 25 yards, in tissue at 125 yards. The 18 inch guns seem to replicate the 10.5 inch in tissue from 25 yards, at distances of 250 yards.

MRF54 seems to have a good feel for the performance of the rounds and their probable performance in combat type environments. Give him a shout and ask how he sees potential TT&P's with respect to current Urban Warfare tactical doctrines.

For the folks who count on precision marksmanship skills to provide required battlefield lethality, rock on because the US procurement agencies and their employees are providing you just that. Validation of living tissue lethality on the battle field can now facilitated with new and enhanced computer modeled ballistic gelatin impacts.

For all of the those folks who want a round to demonstrate increased lethality and increased "0" mission probability from a single round impact to either full torso or appendage impact in living tissue come on down. I think that was the point of Dr. Vails article.

Roger that on vehicles.

[Odd Job]

@ All

My response to SS was moved to this thread:

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11178

[x SF med]

SS-
my guess is that the guy in the x-rays is alive - but not thinking very clearly anymore - paralyzed, deaf and probably blind on the right side. Not a head of broccoli, but pretty close.

[swatsurgeon]

Actually the elevator is only missing the top 2 floors on him....I was surprised at how functional he was after 3 weeks in coma then slow recovery for 4 more. Normal vision, balance is alittle off, leans to the right, slight weakness left arm and leg, speech is good, not perfect. Lives with chronic headaches and photophobia (good eyes pick up)

[CharlesArbuckle]

?

4. Why don't the nay sayers rally here at PS like they do everywhere else?




I mean no disrespect to anyone, but most dont come because there is no room for contention here. If you do not aggree with the moderators, you are barreted and/or banned. It's there house, I guess.



I have expierence with LaMas 5.56 ammo. My only question is... Has all that are still claiming that the rounds are "unique" and can not be tested in ballistic geletin, not seen this? -

"Using stereomicroscopy comparative analysis and SEM data, AFTE affiliated forensic scientists were able to prove that each of the LeMas rifle loads tested actually used commercially produced conventional rifle bullets: for example, the LeMas 5.56 mm Urban Warfare load is actually a Nosler 40 gr Ballistic Tip #39510, while the LeMas 5.56 mm Land Warfare appears to be a Sierra 45 gr JSP Varminter #1310. Similarly the LeMas .308 Land Warfare turned out to be a Hornady 110 gr JSP #3010, while the LeMas .308 TFSP is really a Hornady 110 gr VMAX #23010, and the LeMas .308 Urban Warfare is a Nosler 125 gr Ballistic Tip #30125--oh, and the one lead-free LeMas rifle load we tested, the .308 SSSP/HARPPII, turned out to use Barnes Solid 125 gr all brass bullets #30812.

Dr. Roberts"

[Team Sergeant]

I mean no disrespect to anyone, but most dont come because there is no room for contention here. If you do not aggree with the moderators, you are barreted and/or banned. It's there house, I guess.



I have expierence with LaMas 5.56 ammo. My only question is... Has all that are still claiming that the rounds are "unique" and can not be tested in ballistic geletin, not seen this? -

"Using stereomicroscopy comparative analysis and SEM data, AFTE affiliated forensic scientists were able to prove that each of the LeMas rifle loads tested actually used commercially produced conventional rifle bullets: for example, the LeMas 5.56 mm Urban Warfare load is actually a Nosler 40 gr Ballistic Tip #39510, while the LeMas 5.56 mm Land Warfare appears to be a Sierra 45 gr JSP Varminter #1310. Similarly the LeMas .308 Land Warfare turned out to be a Hornady 110 gr JSP #3010, while the LeMas .308 TFSP is really a Hornady 110 gr VMAX #23010, and the LeMas .308 Urban Warfare is a Nosler 125 gr Ballistic Tip #30125--oh, and the one lead-free LeMas rifle load we tested, the .308 SSSP/HARPPII, turned out to use Barnes Solid 125 gr all brass bullets #30812.

Dr. Roberts"


Charles you've been here long enough to have read the rules I'm sure. You might try again. And while we've banned a few, we've never "barreted" anyone.

Try reading them again.

TS

[swatsurgeon]

Charles,
for people following this thread.....the makeup of the bullet is not on trial here. The effects in tissue, unexplained by gel testing, is the featured item.
I do not care what it is made of, how it is made or what the name or hype has been. The ammuntion I fired, saw fired, compared to 'conventional' ammunition acts differently in tissue than what is predicted by a simulant that demonstrates it can not adequately/accurately test this ammo for a "gel to tissue correlation" that the average ammo can adequately predict.
When the model doesn't fit, we change the model to exploit the effects that it can't demonstrate.

Please do not insult me with the metallurgic facts that have no bearing on the commentary I wrote or the facts being discussed. I have no malice toward anyone that questions, with a reasonable argument, the facts presented, i.e., it acts differently in tissue than in gel and that because of this, it has not received the appropriate testing and attention to it's incapacitation potential simply because of a report of ballistic gelatin characteristics.

ss

[MRF54]

I mean no disrespect to anyone, but most dont come because there is no room for contention here. If you do not aggree with the moderators, you are barreted and/or banned. It's there house, I guess.



I have expierence with LaMas 5.56 ammo. My only question is... Has all that are still claiming that the rounds are "unique" and can not be tested in ballistic geletin, not seen this? -

"Using stereomicroscopy comparative analysis and SEM data, AFTE affiliated forensic scientists were able to prove that each of the LeMas rifle loads tested actually used commercially produced conventional rifle bullets: for example, the LeMas 5.56 mm Urban Warfare load is actually a Nosler 40 gr Ballistic Tip #39510, while the LeMas 5.56 mm Land Warfare appears to be a Sierra 45 gr JSP Varminter #1310. Similarly the LeMas .308 Land Warfare turned out to be a Hornady 110 gr JSP #3010, while the LeMas .308 TFSP is really a Hornady 110 gr VMAX #23010, and the LeMas .308 Urban Warfare is a Nosler 125 gr Ballistic Tip #30125--oh, and the one lead-free LeMas rifle load we tested, the .308 SSSP/HARPPII, turned out to use Barnes Solid 125 gr all brass bullets #30812.

Dr. Roberts"

Charles,
First off, welcome to this forum. Seeing that this is your first post at PS you must be following this controversy pretty closely. For me, one of the things that attracted me to this forum is the rules and the deliberate enforcement of them. I find it refreshing - plus it keeps you on your toes! All that being said... I would follow TS' advice and read the rules and then follow protocol if you want to be taken seriously and/or treated nicely... but I don't think anyone in here really cares much for how people feel (unless it's your birthday)... this isn't a feel good fan club kinda place... this is someone else's house, thus we are all guests and are obligated out of courtesy to follow the house rules. But once again welcome and I look forward to discussing this with you!

Your statement-
My answer to you is yes, I am aware of that information. However, I have a few problems with it...

1. Vendor information was publicly posted and discussed by a person representing a (by charter) unbiased organization. What other ammunition manufacturer or person has had to endure this type of public discrediting? Are not the shelves of hunting stores, gun shops, and Stuff-Mart full of ammo that doesn't pass the golden standard of ballistic jello?

2. Dr. Roberts was not the first person to question this visual similarity and dissect the ammo. I have been trying to figure this one out for years and I am to a point now where it just doesn't matter anymore due to the performance of LeMas.

3. Where are the receipts from the bullet manufacturers showing LeMas purchasing these bullets? There should be a paper trail a mile long indicting them to this fact. But then again, why is this an issue? As a matter of fact that might be a good thing. That would = easier manufacturing, more of this stuff quicker, and more business for US based companies. Sounds like a win-win for everyone!

4. IF LeMas is using these other manufacturers bullets (I have no proof either way ) it still does not diminish what the LeMas rounds consistently do to tissue when shot side by side against, supposedly, the same bullet - even through various barriers! Commercial ammo is shot against commercial ammo. The other stuff isn't consistent and does not perform like the LeMas in live tissue.

5. I view this type of information, publicly posted and debated, as an opportunity for those that have made up their mind to derail all interested parties from the facts. The fact is, LeMas really does a fantastic job at destroying live tissue - CONSISTENTLY through various BARRIERS. Nothing the LeMas guys have said, Dr. Roberts, SwatSurgeon, the 100's of operators who have now seen it work, or myself say/have said/or will say is going to change that.

6. Doesn't LeMas have some sort of proprietary rights about their products? Knowing their secret recipe doesn't change the fact that everyone who has witnessed a side by side comparison of their ammo vs the others has seen it work in off the shelf weapons on live tissue.

So, in agreement to what SS posted earlier, let's keep this thread in line and have a discerning, focused, and mature discussion about LeMas and it's effects on living tissue. Believing in LeMas IS NOT a prerequisite to joining this debate - I haven't been offered any cool-aid yet. Having your own facts, your own experience, and your own questions is however needed to participate with any seriousness.

Part 2:
Standard #1 is jello.
Standard #2 is long range accuracy.
1.What is the real lethality range of all the current issued 5.56mm ammo fired from a standard M4? I don't want to hear about computer models.

2. What are the average ranges of engagement of Western infantry with their service rifle since WW2?

3. What are the average engagement ranges of Coalition Forces in OIF/OEF with their M4's?

4. Why place accuracy (and negligible terminal effects of all the 5.56mm) above and beyond performance from 0-250m with the LeMas? If LeMas kills the competition (puns r fun), isn't this just another derailment from the facts?

*I have no idea what LeMas will do to live tissue at 400m. Does anyone have any real data at this range?

I heard that Chuck Norris was endorsing LeMas because it was the first bullet he saw that ever scared him.

[Gene Econ]

FWIW most people cannot shoot a weapon straight.
Now that you have peaked my interest I'll go and shoot some LeMas at what ever distance you post and get back to you concerning MOA. TS
Graduate, Special Forces Sniper School.

TS:

Have been waiting for some results but I see no one gave you any distances!

How about shooting for group at 200, 300, and 500 yards through both an SPR and a service grade M-4. I figure five strings of five per type of ammo should give some very accurate statistical results.


Gene

[Odd Job]

@ SS

...for people following this thread.....the makeup of the bullet is not on trial here. The effects in tissue, unexplained by gel testing, is the featured item.
I do not care what it is made of, how it is made or what the name or hype has been. The ammuntion I fired, saw fired, compared to 'conventional' ammunition acts differently in tissue...

I would just like to clarify what your role was in the testing of the LeMas ammunition and what your subsequent commitments are (which may affect similar tests in the future). The way I understand it, it's like this:

1. You don't have a vested interest in whether the manufacturers of LeMas have produced a physically unique projectile or not, and you have no role in confirming or refuting this.

2. You were not advised either before testing or during testing that any of the tested LeMas projectiles were rebranded OTS commercial projectiles (for the purpose of documenting differences in the behaviour of the projectile in live tissue that were not as a result of the design of the projectile).

3. Your role was not to verify what projectiles were involved in the testing; and in fact you could not verify this by surface inspection of the cartridges; and even if that verification was possible you were not in a position to do so because you did not conduct all the firing of the projectiles.

4. You do not have a commitment, instruction or a tacit agreement to support any of LeMas's marketing claims with regards to the advertised mode of deployment of the projectiles (reasonable proof of impartiality).

5. Your role was expressly limited to the documentation of the effects of each firing into the live animal and did not extend to documentation and/or verification of the test firing parameters (especially when it comes to possible differences in parameters when firing LeMas ammunition vs others).

Could you please set me straight if I am wrong on any of these points.

My ruminations continue:

There has been (as yet) no rebuttal or evidence from any of the key players who have a financial (or otherwise tangible) stake in the LeMas product, to the effect that what Charles Arbuckle posted is not true. In other words there is no effort to refute the claim that some LeMas 'spitzer' projectiles are rebranded OTS commercial projectiles. If we assume for now that this is in fact the case, I would like to know whether your analysis of these live tissue firings would have been handled in any way differently from how it was done, with particular regard to the following (if you were made aware of this rebranding prior to the shoot):

1. Would you have made any attempt (either out of curiosity or for scientific purposes) to come to a conclusion (based on your knowledge of real life terminal ballistics) why essentially the same projectile exhibited such superior performance when fired out of a LeMas cartridge compared to existing commercial cartridges loaded with that same projectile?

2. Would you have been more critical or in any way changed how you physically inspected the tissues, with particular regard to the effects of 'standard' vs LeMas targets?

Lastly, I would like to know if this new information about these projectiles in any way changes your plans, or proposed methodology with regards to a subsequent test of the LeMas ammunition with particular regards to an impartial documentation of which projectiles are fired into which tissues and whether these are unique LeMas projectiles or not. I say this because nobody as yet has claimed that ALL of the LeMas projectiles are rebranded OTS projectiles: I have not yet seen anybody claim that the 9mm projectiles are not original designs, for instance.

I have assumed that you will be involved in subsequent LeMas testing but I have not assumed that you are standing as a professional referee for the support of the LeMas marketing claims. Likewise on this point I would like you to correct me if I am wrong because this affects the perceived 'nature' of the current and future tests of this ammunition.

[Team Sergeant]

Was damaged when it was split from the "Radiological Discussion of Lemas Ammo". We are attempting to correct the problem.

That is all.

Team Sergeant

[Dan]

Fixed

[KevinB]

TS:

Have been waiting for some results but I see no one gave you any distances!

How about shooting for group at 200, 300, and 500 yards through both an SPR and a service grade M-4. I figure five strings of five per type of ammo should give some very accurate statistical results.


Gene

Gene -- it got moved into the other thread (unk why)

My only distances where 100m and 200m.

Stan came back with a point that the round does not like longer than 14.5" barrelled 1:7's.

I'd be curious for TS's results with your suggestion.

[Ambush Master]

Gene -- it got moved into the other thread (unk why)

My only distances where 100m and 200m.

Stan came back with a point that the round does not like longer than 14.5" barrelled 1:7's.

I'd be curious for TS's results with your suggestion.

Kevin,

I just moved it back in here. When this got split into the Radiological Thread, it got messed up a bit. We're getting it straightened out.

I believe what you are looking for is post# 149 & 150.

Martin

[Gene Econ]

Gene -- it got moved into the other thread (unk why) My only distances where 100m and 200m. Stan came back with a point that the round does not like longer than 14.5" barrelled 1:7's. I'd be curious for TS's results with your suggestion.


Kevin / Martin:

I read posts 149 and 150 again and there are no results of accuracy evaluations. Hopefully TS will hit a KD range and do some of these tests.

Kevin -- What were your results at 100 and 200 please. Hopefully you used service grade carbines or rifles with as issued barrel lengths and rifling twists.

Also -- it seems there is a bunch of different types of this ammo in 5.56. And each one seems to like a certain twist and barrel length. I am getting kind of confused over these varieties of ammo, their intent, and associated barrel lengths and twists. Anyone out there who can direct me to this information?

Wouldn't mind seeing some info on chamber pressures over about 120 degrees worth of changes in ammunition temperature if anyone has such information.

Thankyou

Gene

[KevinB]

Gene - I shot it with a 16" midlength Douglas 1:7 Wylde Chambered KAC SR16.

Our C8SFW (whe I was in the CF) had a 1:7 16" barrel.


I got aprox 3.5MOA out of it at both 100-200m (this has been over two and a half years since I shot this) I cannot recall the exact group measurements but they where not nearly as good as the IVI C77 nor the HSM 77gr I had on hand.
When I go on leave next I will dig thru the garage and see if I have the results still on a paper copy.

[CharlesArbuckle]

Charles you've been here long enough to have read the rules I'm sure. You might try again. And while we've banned a few, we've never "barreted" anyone.

Try reading them again.

TS


I apologise. I had wrongly thought I had posted an introduction when I joined.

[CharlesArbuckle]

Charles,
for people following this thread.....the makeup of the bullet is not on trial here.

Yes it is. The manufacturer's basis for this bullet is "new bullet technology". Its not. Its off the shelf varmint bullets. Noboady here would support a weapon manufacturer that lies and/or uses false advertising, yet people are doing exactly that with LaMas.


The effects in tissue, unexplained by gel testing, is the featured item.
I do not care what it is made of, how it is made or what the name or hype has been. The ammuntion I fired, saw fired, compared to 'conventional' ammunition acts differently in tissue than what is predicted by a simulant that demonstrates it can not adequately/accurately test this ammo for a "gel to tissue correlation" that the average ammo can adequately predict.
When the model doesn't fit, we change the model to exploit the effects that it can't demonstrate.

The point is LaMas uses bullets that were desinged in ballistic geletin. So anyone stating that they can not "adequately/accurately test this ammo for a "gel to tissue correlation" is off there rocker.

Please do not insult me with the metallurgic facts that have no bearing on the commentary I wrote or the facts being discussed. I have no malice toward anyone that questions, with a reasonable argument, the facts presented, i.e., it acts differently in tissue than in gel and that because of this, it has not received the appropriate testing and attention to it's incapacitation potential simply because of a report of ballistic gelatin characteristics.

Then please do not insult me by ignoring the fact that it acts exactly like those same off the shelf bullets when driven at the same velocity. I have seen LaMas ammo fired right next to the same ballistic tip bullets fired at the same velocity (22-250 and 220Swift) with the exact same performance. All this is a moot point for us, as LaMas ammo is not legal for land warfare use, and never will be. If someone wants that type of performance thats not in the US military, fine. Go buy varmint ammo or get componets and reload over pressure rounds, instead of supporting a company that outright lies .

ss
.

[The Reaper]

Charles:

I think that the LeMas personnel have been told by the manufacturer that the bullets they are selling are unique. They do not manufacture the ammo themselves. It is a real stretch to assume that they are lying or providing false advertising. Lying implies intent to deceive. Are you one of the people who think that the POTUS lied about Iraq as well?

Are the pistol bullets off the shelf as well? If so, whose? I have not seen too many 2300 fps .45 ACP loads.

If you had read all of this thread, you would know that the debate here is not what the bullets are made of, it is about what they do in live tissue. Who else's 5.56 or 7.62 loads will replicate the live tissue performance of the LeMas?

I do not believe that the LeMas bullets function the same in gelatin as live tissue, and I have fired several hundred of them. I have seen no pressure signs when shooting the LaMas ammo in the proper modern firearms, and I have seen conventional commercially loaded ammo blow primers in the same gun fired before the LeMas. What is the sopiurce of your pressure data? More relevant to the discussion, your profile does not indicate that you are a ballistician, have you fired any into live tissue?

All of the LeMas bullets are not the same. You do not indicate any JAG service either. Who are you to predict what is and what will be legal? Terrorists and criminals are not Geneva protected personnel and units pursuing them have used non-GC compliant ammo for years. Are they illegal too?

Frankly, you need to lay out more creds than you have so far to participate in this ammo discussion. State your personal experience with the ammo, not what GKR told you to say.

Stay focused on the performance of the ammo in live tissue, and how it compares to other ammo.

Do not commit any more personal attacks against anyone, to include LeMas, or you will be permanently excluded from this debate here.

TR

[CharlesArbuckle]

Charles:

I think that the LeMas personnel have been told by the manufacturer that the bullets they are selling are unique. They do not manufacture the ammo themselves. It is a real stretch to assume that they are lying or providing false advertising. Lying implies intent to deceive.

Then I apologise if LaMas is truely ignorant of the facts. But as a reputable company they should invetigate there manufacture in light of this info.



Are the pistol bullets off the shelf as well? If so, whose? I have not seen too many 2300 fps .45 ACP loads.

I do not know, I havent seen any 2,300fps 45 loads either. I should have been more specific, I am refering to the 5.56 loads. I have very little expierence with LaMas handgun loads.



If you had read all of this thread, you would know that the debate here is not what the bullets are made of, it is about what they do in live tissue. Who else's 5.56 or 7.62 loads will replicate the live tissue performance of the LeMas?

I have read all of this thread. I know of know commercially loaded 5.56 ammo that matches the velocity of the LaMas ammo, as it is over pressure. However the same bullets driven at the same speed perform exactly like the LaMas rounds.



I do not believe that the LeMas bullets function the same in gelatin as live tissue, and I have fired several hundred of them. I have seen no pressure signs when shooting the LaMas ammo in the proper modern firearms, and I have seen conventional commercially loaded ammo blow primers in the same gun fired before the LeMas. What is the sopiurce of your pressure data?

While they may not be dangerously overpressure, they are over the norm. Here is the pressure numbers http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=001189 middle of the third section. I did not have a strain gauge on hand when I shot.


More relevant to the discussion, your profile does not indicate that you are a ballistician, have you fired any into live tissue?

Nor does yours. I have fired them in live tissue.


All of the LeMas bullets are not the same.

But they all use bullets that are by design, expanding bullets.


You do not indicate any JAG service either. Who are you to predict what is and what will be legal?

Exposed lead and plastic tip bullets are not legal for land warfare use. You know this as well as I.



Terrorists and criminals are not Geneva protected personnel and units pursuing them have used non-GC compliant ammo for years. Are they illegal too?

No, and if that is the specific situation then fine.



Frankly, you need to lay out more creds than you have so far to participate in this ammo discussion.

What creds would allow me to participate? This an honest question, what are you looking for?



State your personal experience with the ammo, not what GKR told you to say.

A few hundred rounds, with a couple in live tissue. Furthermore why is it when someone doesnt agree with a positive stance on LaMas ammo, Dr. Roberts told them to say it? Sounds like a dance around aswering the real issue. I do not know Dr. Roberts on a personal level, and have only communicated with him on the erronet a couple times.



Stay focused on the performance of the ammo in live tissue, and how it compares to other ammo.

Understood.



Do not commit any more personal attacks against anyone, to include LeMas, or you will be permanently excluded from this debate here.

Nothing I have posted was a personal attack on anyone, to include LaMas. Everything I posted was factual. I'm sorry if it doesnt fit you predetermined mold.

TR

I have been nothing but respectful to everyone here, and will continue to be provided it is returned. Of that you have you no worries.

[The Reaper]

I have been nothing but respectful to everyone here, and will continue to be provided it is returned. Of that you have you no worries.

Well, you have already called members here liars, and I would see that as somewhat less than respectful.

Are you the one who tested the ammo and wrote the posts that you referred to, or are you putting up someone else's test info?

Looks to me from the posts that you referenced, that the 5.56 Land Warfare was shot in the wrong barrel. The pressure specs for that ammo should be tested in an 10.5" 1x7" barrel, they run fine in mine. IMHO, they will run hot in anything over 14.5" or so.

If the same bullets at the same MV perform in exactly the same fashion, why did GKR state that they were only suitable for "shooting small furry animals"? I have shot much larger animals and as swatsurgeon stated, the performance and tissue damage is incredible. Why is no one else currently loading this ammo as a defense round?

Not all LeMas ammo is lead or plastic tipped, or designed to be expanding. Some is dedicated AP and IIRC, is homogenous. I believe you can see that on the thread you referenced. Ask Gary.

I think that my use of the ammunition over a multi-year period, my participation in this thread, and previous posts on the LeMas rounds establishes that I am adequately versed in ballistics to discuss this topic generically. It is acknowledged that I am not a trauma surgeon, or a "certified" ballistics expert, and I have not stayed in a Holiday Inn recently. I am still waiting for another pathologist or trauma surgeon to refute swatsurgeon's analysis. You have never posted on anything on this board except this thread (except for your recent intro), have little in your profile, and have only posted comments that seem to be quotes directly from GKR. Are you actually Gary Roberts, or is he just channelling through you?

What is your background in ballistics, weapons, or medicine?

I find it amazing when you claim not to know GKR, since your previous comments on the LeMas ammo are virtually verbatim from a conversation he and I had recently. The similarities and points are identical, and in exactly the same sequence. You could have worked from exactly the same script. What a coincidence.

The real surprising thing is that Gary can get fans (not personally directed at you, since you are not in communication with him), to take what he says and parrot it on websites as Gospel, even if they have never fired a round. I am glad to hear that you have shot the ammo in question. What did you shoot, what did you hit with it and what were the results you observed?

That is the real issue here. The thread is about how LeMas works in live tissue. Not what the bullets are made out of, not how they function, not how they perform in gelatin, not what claims have been made, not whether they are Geneva Convention compliant. WHAT DO THEY DO IN LIVE TISSUE?

You called the vendors of the ammo, who are members here, liars. Where I grew up, that is offensive and would be considered fighting words. I think you owe them an apology unless or until you can prove that they have knowingly misled people about their ammo. If you do not see that, I think you are missing the point. The comments that "it doesnt fit you predetermined mold" is irrelevant. People on Tactical Forums have committed ad hominem attacks on Dr. Vail without ever refuting his results. That will not happen here in a discussion I am involved in. I think everyone has been told that already.

We can have this discussion with you (and others who share Gary's viewpoints) making his points for him, or we can let him and his experts make their own arguments with Dr. Vail with his associates. It has been almost two months since I posted the article by Dr. Vail, and GKR has visited here regularly without personally offering any scientific refutation of the findings. Note that the discussion here has been professional and without name calling or allegations of quackery, even when visitors were belligerent from the beginning. All we have seen are people who come here to seemingly make GKR's arguments for him. One would think that he (or a physician with ballistics experience sharing his views) was afraid to make his argument himself for some reason. If he has his facts right, why?

Why is GKR here himself reading, but not answering Dr. Vail's findings concerning the performance of LeMas ammo in live tissue? I have personally offered him the opportunity to discuss the matter with Dr. Vail in a limited access forum here, and he was noncommittal.

Does he concede that it is devastating in live tissue, and merely wants to argue the details of its manufacture?

I believe that an offer has been made to conduct another live tissue shoot at a controlled facility with GKR (and anyone he wants to bring) present to take whatever readings they wish, with Dr. Vail and his party in attendance. The results could be mutually signed off on and published as factual, putting this argument to rest.

To date, I do not believe that he has accepted the challenge.

I have spoken with Gary and he does not seem like a bad sort of fellow. I wonder why he remains mute here, content to let others argue for him?

TR

[Odd Job]

@ The Reaper

All we have seen are people who come here to seemingly make GKR's arguments for him.

I trust you do not include me in that group. I don't know Dr Roberts and I've never spoken to him personally. I've never acted under any direction from him and I have no financial or professional attachments to any member here or on TF.

[The Reaper]

@ The Reaper

I trust you do not include me in that group. I don't know Dr Roberts and I've never spoken to him personally. I've never acted under any direction from him and I have no financial or professional attachments to any member here or on TF.

OJ:

To my observation, you have not speculated on the performance of the ammunition beyond a desire to see radiological data, and discussion of gelatin as a valid test medium.

As a member of TF.com, you would have to acknowledge that most of the info there is from sources which are clearly hostile towards LeMas and are not inclined to entertain opposing viewpoints to GKR's opinions. Given that, your posts here seem to have been relatively open-minded towards an analysis of hard data in a field of your expertise, and a spirited defense of radiographers and their skills.

I thought that you had decided to wait till that data is available to visit or comment further here?

TR

[Odd Job]

@ The Reaper

Thanks for your comment, I do appreciate it.

I thought that you had decided to wait till that data is available to visit or comment further here?

APLP says the radiographs from the shoot that SS reported on, are not available. SS hasn't answered my latest questions about his role in the shoot. I am quite aware that I am not at all liked on this forum and there are quite a few reasons for this and I have thrashed some of them out here. I don't think there is going to be any further information coming my way on which we can base a further discussion here. That's fine with me. That's how the deal is.

But one thing I wanted to be clear was that I am not a messenger boy.

[The Reaper]

I looked and the X-Rays that I have are the same ones APLP has, and as photos of X-Rays, I do not think that they show much, if any detail.

If anyone has any decent radiography from a LeMas shoot, I would hope that they would share it.

Based on my experience, all they are going to show is a spherical cloud of dust sized particles around a central wound channel with the radius dependent on the velocity and weight of the bullet.

I would not be so quick to judge your popularity here, I personally have no issues with you, and if someone does, that should not really affect their objectivity or willingness to provide data.

After all, the intent of this thread is to put out information and try to engage in a bit of informed discussion.

Appreciate your feedback.

TR

[APLP]

@ The Reaper

Thanks for your comment, I do appreciate it.



APLP says the radiographs from the shoot that SS reported on, are not available. SS hasn't answered my latest questions about his role in the shoot. I am quite aware that I am not at all liked on this forum and there are quite a few reasons for this and I have thrashed some of them out here. I don't think there is going to be any further information coming my way on which we can base a further discussion here. That's fine with me. That's how the deal is.

But one thing I wanted to be clear was that I am not a messenger boy.

Odd Job,

You will be welcome to have full access to the next round of documentation as it relates to your fields of expertise that will include Le Mas AP handgun data that you have expressed specific interest . If you cannot attend I will make efforts to send the data to you at your location. I would expect another evolution to take place at a designated research facility within the next couple of months.

[Odd Job]

@ APLP and TR

Thank you

[CharlesArbuckle]

Well, you have already called members here liars, and I would see that as somewhat less than respectful.

I apologized for that at the top of my last post.


Are you the one who tested the ammo and wrote the posts that you referred to, or are you putting up someone else's test info?

I'm confused here. If your talking about the link I provided on test pressure, its from Dr. Roberts.



If the same bullets at the same MV perform in exactly the same fashion, why did GKR state that they were only suitable for "shooting small furry animals"? I have shot much larger animals and as swatsurgeon stated, the performance and tissue damage is incredible. Why is no one else currently loading this ammo as a defense round?

I cant presume to speak for Dr Roberts, but it might have to do with the fact that they are COTS varmint bullets, or the lack, in his eyes, of adequate penetration.



Not all LeMas ammo is lead or plastic tipped, or designed to be expanding. Some is dedicated AP and IIRC, is homogenous. I believe you can see that on the thread you referenced. Ask Gary.

You are right. I wasnt really thinking about those. Sorry for the oversight.



I think that my use of the ammunition over a multi-year period, my participation in this thread, and previous posts on the LeMas rounds establishes that I am adequately versed in ballistics to discuss this topic generically. It is acknowledged that I am not a trauma surgeon, or a "certified" ballistics expert, and I have not stayed in a Holiday Inn recently.

It was not my intention to question your creds.



You have never posted on anything on this board except this thread (except for your recent intro), have little in your profile,

I havent posted because because I rarely visit. I rarely ask questions on forums boards, because I dont really have any questions, and if I do they can useally be answered with a search. When I do come here I dont answer questions or give advice because its usually answered suffiecently by members such as yourself.



and have only posted comments that seem to be quotes directly from GKR. Are you actually Gary Roberts, or is he just channelling through you?

Once agian, I am not Gary Roberts, I do not know Dr. Roberts, if my posts seem to be quotes from him, I'm flatered, but they are not.



What is your background in ballistics, weapons, or medicine?

By ballistics, I assume you mean terminal, but just in case heres all three. I have little expierence with internal ballistics, other than attaching strain gauges, and helping with pressure testing on a couple of occasions. External, everything from muzzle to 2,400yds. Terminal, mainly studying written works from Dr. Fackler, Dr. Roberts, etc, picking the Delta's brains, a few gunshot wounds while working on an ambulance, and performing amateur autopsies on hundreds of animals, shot with everthing from .17cal to 50BMG.

On weapons, save for some machine guns, most of them. I shoot 60K rounds (separate from the unit) on average every year, most being 5.56, 9mm, and 45acp. I'm a school trained sniper (Benning), SDM, attended numerous small arms and CQB/MOUT courses both Mil and civilian, master classed IDPA shooter, 3-gun, F- classs shooter, and part time firearms trainer. I've shot with, trained with, and been trained by Tier1 units, and world champions. In short I know which end the bullets come out.;)

On medicine, an EMT/IV, some basic and avanced trauma classes and thats about it. Certainly no 18D level stuff, though they do probably get tired of me asking them questions all the time:D .






I find it amazing when you claim not to know GKR, since your previous comments on the LeMas ammo are virtually verbatim from a conversation he and I had recently. The similarities and points are identical, and in exactly the same sequence. You could have worked from exactly the same script. What a coincidence.

I dont believe in coincidence's so maybe just a logical conclusion.



The real surprising thing is that Gary can get fans (not personally directed at you, since you are not in communication with him), to take what he says and parrot it on websites as Gospel, even if they have never fired a round.

I truely doubt Dr. Roberts gets anybody to "parrot" his thoughts "on websites as Gospel" Probably more to do with that his posts are inteligent, scientificly based, sound, and unbiased. I dont think he has anything personal with LaMas, he just wants the truth along with most of the rest of us.


I am glad to hear that you have shot the ammo in question. What did you shoot, what did you hit with it and what were the results you observed?


A couple steel plates, though I really cant remember what kind of steel they were, that ranged from 1/8-1/2in, and a couple furry creatures:p. I have seen the results from deer (around 115lbs) and I thought they preformed like any thin jacketed "ballistictip" bullet fired at high velocity. It certainly killed the animal, and there was lots of tissue dissruption, but not enough penetration for anything other then completely broadside shots IMHO. Would I shoot a human with them? Sure. I just dont believe they do anything "special".




That is the real issue here. The thread is about how LeMas works in live tissue. Not what the bullets are made out of, not how they function, not how they perform in gelatin, not what claims have been made, not whether they are Geneva Convention compliant. WHAT DO THEY DO IN LIVE TISSUE?

Oh, they dissrupt the shit out of it. They were desinged to by the manufactures. No argument there. My worry with them is they are varmint bullets, they behave like varmint bullets (maybe a little more violently the comercialy loaded rounds) and so suffer, from the evidence I have seen, from rather shallow penetration.




You called the vendors of the ammo, who are members here, liars. Where I grew up, that is offensive and would be considered fighting words. I think you owe them an apology unless or until you can prove that they have knowingly misled people about their ammo. If you do not see that, I think you are missing the point.

I addressed that at the top of this post.



The comments that "it doesnt fit you predetermined mold" is irrelevant.

Maybe, maybe not. I think from an objective viewpoint, most ( not necessarily you) that are awstruck by LaMas are just that, awsturck by what it does. And it does create massive tissue damage, but so does alot of other rounds and ammo. I have no persoanl interest in this, I would not feel inadequate carring LaMas into combat, but I would rather see another company produce ammo to the same specs, if I were to use it, just because LaMas has been less the totaly honest about it.



We can have this discussion with you (and others who share Gary's viewpoints) making his points for him, or we can let him and his experts make their own arguments with Dr. Vail with his associates. It has been almost two months since I posted the article by Dr. Vail, and GKR has visited here regularly without personally offering any scientific refutation of the findings. Note that the discussion here has been professional and without name calling or allegations of quackery, even when visitors were belligerent from the beginning. All we have seen are people who come here to seemingly make GKR's arguments for him. One would think that he (or a physician with ballistics experience sharing his views) was afraid to make his argument himself for some reason. If he has his facts right, why?

I do not know for sure why Dr. Roberts doesnt post here, but I have my guesses. I for one would like to see him post here too.




I have spoken with Gary and he does not seem like a bad sort of fellow. I wonder why he remains mute here, content to let others argue for him?

If you think I argue for Dr. Roberts, you are sorely mistaken. I am here of my own accord, and with my own thoughts.


TR


Sorry for using the quotes all the time, it just seems easier to keep track of whats going on.

[swatsurgeon]

Odd Job,
Sorry for the delay in answering..just got back from vacation. I will respond to each of your questions:

I would just like to clarify what your role was in the testing of the LeMas ammunition and what your subsequent commitments are (which may affect similar tests in the future). The way I understand it, it's like this:

1. You don't have a vested interest in whether the manufacturers of LeMas have produced a physically unique projectile or not, and you have no role in confirming or refuting this. {CORRECT}

2. You were not advised either before testing or during testing that any of the tested LeMas projectiles were rebranded OTS commercial projectiles (for the purpose of documenting differences in the behaviour of the projectile in live tissue that were not as a result of the design of the projectile). {CORRECT}

3. Your role was not to verify what projectiles were involved in the testing; and in fact you could not verify this by surface inspection of the cartridges; and even if that verification was possible you were not in a position to do so because you did not conduct all the firing of the projectiles. {I was present for all cartridges being removed from each box of either 'factory' ammo or the LeMas box. I have seen and inspected enough of the LeMas to know it on sight and can verify that what came out of the LeMas 'white box' was the LeMas ammo that I have seen on other occasions. I was present next to the shooter and saw the magazine go into each firearm used for each test so that no switching of intended ammo was done }

4. You do not have a commitment, instruction or a tacit agreement to support any of LeMas's marketing claims with regards to the advertised mode of deployment of the projectiles (reasonable proof of impartiality). {CORRECT}

5. Your role was expressly limited to the documentation of the effects of each firing into the live animal and did not extend to documentation and/or verification of the test firing parameters (especially when it comes to possible differences in parameters when firing LeMas ammunition vs others). {CORRECT, although I'm not sure what other parameters you are referencing}

Could you please set me straight if I am wrong on any of these points.

My ruminations continue:

There has been (as yet) no rebuttal or evidence from any of the key players who have a financial (or otherwise tangible) stake in the LeMas product, to the effect that what Charles Arbuckle posted is not true. In other words there is no effort to refute the claim that some LeMas 'spitzer' projectiles are rebranded OTS commercial projectiles. If we assume for now that this is in fact the case, I would like to know whether your analysis of these live tissue firings would have been handled in any way differently from how it was done, with particular regard to the following (if you were made aware of this rebranding prior to the shoot): {This has been addressed by others previously in this thread}

1. Would you have made any attempt (either out of curiosity or for scientific purposes) to come to a conclusion (based on your knowledge of real life terminal ballistics) why essentially the same projectile exhibited such superior performance when fired out of a LeMas cartridge compared to existing commercial cartridges loaded with that same projectile? { I have seen no commercial ammo offered to date that states it will penetrate armor and have wound ballistics such as those demonstrated by LeMas. I have never read or been advised of any commercial ammunition company demonstrating similiar results as those seen with the LeMas rounds; in live tissue.}

2. Would you have been more critical or in any way changed how you physically inspected the tissues, with particular regard to the effects of 'standard' vs LeMas targets? { I dissected animals hit by all types of ammo, both thoracic cavity and hind quarter shots in the samre manner regardless of the type of ammo used. You could easily have 'blinded' the shooting of any of the animals and I would be able to distinguish between those hit with the LeMas rounds and those hit by all others. I could not have told you which of the other commercially available ammo was used only that the LeMas was used on a particular animal.}

Lastly, I would like to know if this new information about these projectiles in any way changes your plans, or proposed methodology with regards to a subsequent test of the LeMas ammunition with particular regards to an impartial documentation of which projectiles are fired into which tissues and whether these are unique LeMas projectiles or not. I say this because nobody as yet has claimed that ALL of the LeMas projectiles are rebranded OTS projectiles: I have not yet seen anybody claim that the 9mm projectiles are not original designs, for instance. { As stated, I have not seen any handgun ammo that will/can do what LeMas does in tissue, i.e., replicating a high powered ammunition impact. I haven't seen any of the other manufacturers offer their ammo as having similiar wounding patterns and would be glad to compare any chosen by Dr. Roberts that should replicate the LeMas wounding patterns as well as do gel testing on both to see the gel to tissue correlation, which I believe will not show a high degree of correlation to the wounding effects in tissue as discussed at length in this thread.}

I have assumed that you will be involved in subsequent LeMas testing but I have not assumed that you are standing as a professional referee for the support of the LeMas marketing claims. Likewise on this point I would like you to correct me if I am wrong because this affects the perceived 'nature' of the current and future tests of this ammunition. { The only support I offer is that the gel testing does not accurately demonstrate the wound ballistics of LeMas on live tissue; there is no correlation between the two media. As far as the marketing claims, the only ones i agree with are that the bullet performs as marketed}

I hope this adequately answers your questions. Please feel free to ask more or for clarifications. Now will you ask Dr. Roberts about tissue impacts as well as comparison of any other ammo with LeMas in tissue as well as gel. The failure of correlation is a prime topic for discussion and those that 'depend' on ammunition wound ballistics should want more answers of why the correlation isn't there. It makes you wonder if other ammunition couldn't make it to market because of "poor gel profiling" that would have had good/excellent results in a different test medium,i.e, live tissue. Wouldn't it be a crime if present LE duty ammo and military ammo had objective pathologic correlation (from surgeons and pathologist) that demonstrated a poorer performance in the human body when gel said it would perform to the 'marketing' standard.....
Makes me wonder if a new test medium ought not be developed so that all end users are assured of terminal ballistics rather than inferring from shots in a non-tissue simulant.


ss

[Odd Job]

@ SS

Thanks for the reply. There are one or two items I still don't have clear in my mind:

5. Your role was expressly limited to the documentation of the effects of each firing into the live animal and did not extend to documentation and/or verification of the test firing parameters (especially when it comes to possible differences in parameters when firing LeMas ammunition vs others). {CORRECT, although I'm not sure what other parameters you are referencing}

I mean technical parameters such as firing distance and variable weight/size of pig in each case. There are probably more parameters than what I have mentioned, but it will suffice to know whether it was your role to verify those (in general) or not.

1. Would you have made any attempt (either out of curiosity or for scientific purposes) to come to a conclusion (based on your knowledge of real life terminal ballistics) why essentially the same projectile exhibited such superior performance when fired out of a LeMas cartridge compared to existing commercial cartridges loaded with that same projectile? { I have seen no commercial ammo offered to date that states it will penetrate armor and have wound ballistics such as those demonstrated by LeMas. I have never read or been advised of any commercial ammunition company demonstrating similiar results as those seen with the LeMas rounds; in live tissue.}

And that, sir, is the rub. Because the projectiles are off-the-shelf and are common to both LeMas and those ammunition brands/types with which those spitzer-type bullets have been traditionally associated. I would like to know if that nurtures any curiosity in your mind as to what the contributing factor/parameter is, with regard to the obvious difference in performance between the LeMas ammunition and the equivalent ammunition as commercially available today, which has the same projectile.

{ The only support I offer is that the gel testing does not accurately demonstrate the wound ballistics of LeMas on live tissue; there is no correlation between the two media. As far as the marketing claims, the only ones i agree with are that the bullet performs as marketed}

I understand your point of view on the gel vs tissue debate as applies to this thread, but your last sentence in that quote is very general. For example it could be interpreted that you support marketing claims on how the bullet performs with regards to temperature changes from one medium to another. Perhaps it would be easier if you specified that there are certain LeMas marketing claims that you do not actively support, or have not aimed to support. Are there any such claims and if so, is your stance on those claims derived from the test documented in this thread or from failure to correlate with other real-world shootings you have been involved in?

Now will you ask Dr. Roberts about tissue impacts as well as comparison of any other ammo with LeMas in tissue as well as gel. The failure of correlation is a prime topic for discussion and those that 'depend' on ammunition wound ballistics should want more answers of why the correlation isn't there. It makes you wonder if other ammunition couldn't make it to market because of "poor gel profiling" that would have had good/excellent results in a different test medium,i.e, live tissue.

I am certain that Dr Roberts reads this thread, but even if he didn't I wouldn't get involved in any sort of relaying of messages between individuals of PS and TF. I have had PMs from members both here and on TF and I have PMed people too, but in all cases the subject/content of those messages has related directly to me and if I look at them objectively they have been for my benefit/illumination. My own technical outlook on the matter at hand (concerning your comment above about other ammunition not performing like LeMas) is that I presume their ammunition will in fact behave the same way as the LeMas ammunition does, if the remaining variables to do with the properties of the cartridges are emulated (excluding the projectile, because I am of the opinion now that the construction of the projectile is not the key factor in the success of the rifle ammunition in this test). I have very little knowledge of internal and external ballistics so all I can think of is the velocity of the projectile being much higher in the LeMas ammunition than in others. The handgun ammunition is a different story.

Wouldn't it be a crime if present LE duty ammo and military ammo had objective pathologic correlation (from surgeons and pathologist) that demonstrated a poorer performance in the human body when gel said it would perform to the 'marketing' standard.....

I am interested in that, myself. But the problem is (in my opinion) that unless the ammunition is a consistently-poor performer (such as the Glaser for example), statistical methods aimed at arriving at a conclusion about real-life effectiveness of ammunition (using post-mortem or even hospital data) are confounded by the very thing that sets these tissue tests apart from gel tests: the fact that the human body is not a homogenous medium and the fact that humans are not shot under controlled conditions such as gel or even these pigs to an extent. I suppose the closest we could get to establishing whether ammunition is a 'lemon' or not, is by trying to find a large sample of live victims in which that ammunition can be positively identified. But then we might end up with only things like Glasers. That is one of the things the gel-testers have in their favour: they have no problem with comparing ammunition because of the consistency of their medium and their shooting conditions.

Makes me wonder if a new test medium ought not be developed so that all end users are assured of terminal ballistics rather than inferring from shots in a non-tissue simulant.

I would be interested in that too. But here is a thought: I am sure you will agree with me that a common 'feature' of human gunshot wounds today is that no two gunshot wounds are alike. To develop a medium that can simulate this effect must surely result in a full circle back to inconsistencies in the scientific testing/results? If this was not the case, we would surely have arrived at the definitive caliber to carry by now, even when comparing the same ammunition.

[The Reaper]

Odd Job:

I have been nothing if not tolerant of you on this thread. I have supported you remaining active on this topic when others did not. At the same time, you have been walking a very fine line.

My understanding was that you were interested in this ammunition and in learning more about its wound potential from your field of expertise, a radiographic perspective.

Now it appears that you are asking questions about the personal participation of Dr. Vail which appear to either question his integrity, or at least get a lot further into the details of the testing than would seem to be appropriate for someone who is merely interested in the radiological examination of the wounds in live tissue. I, for one, do not like the tone and direction of your comments to Dr. Vail.

It would be most unfortunate if your comments were to be interpreted as disrespectful, as that would mean the end of your participation here. I would hope that you would not address others, particularly physicians, to their faces in this manner. Perhaps either dialect or the internet are clouding this communication.

Incidentally, you are leaping to conclusions, such as the source and composition of the rounds, which while accepted as gospel on other sites, may or may not be valid. Certainly they call your own objectivity into question. What concern is it of yours who set up the test protocols or what his opinion of the marketing claims are? He wrote the article as a commentary on the LeMas ammunition's performance in live tissue.

This thread is about terminal performance of LeMas in live tissue, as indicated in Dr. Vail's article. Stay on track and be respectful in your tone. I will not repeat myself (again) on this.

I hope that we can continue this thread in a professional manner.

TR

[swatsurgeon]

Odd Job,

I am interested in that, myself. But the problem is (in my opinion) that unless the ammunition is a consistently-poor performer (such as the Glaser for example), statistical methods aimed at arriving at a conclusion about real-life effectiveness of ammunition (using post-mortem or even hospital data) are confounded by the very thing that sets these tissue tests apart from gel tests: the fact that the human body is not a homogenous medium and the fact that humans are not shot under controlled conditions such as gel or even these pigs to an extent. I suppose the closest we could get to establishing whether ammunition is a 'lemon' or not, is by trying to find a large sample of live victims in which that ammunition can be positively identified. But then we might end up with only things like Glasers. That is one of the things the gel-testers have in their favour: they have no problem with comparing ammunition because of the consistency of their medium and their shooting conditions. {Finally, you see the very point being discussed from the perspective and commentary originally offered. }





I would be interested in that too. But here is a thought: I am sure you will agree with me that a common 'feature' of human gunshot wounds today is that no two gunshot wounds are alike. To develop a medium that can simulate this effect must surely result in a full circle back to inconsistencies in the scientific testing/results? If this was not the case, we would surely have arrived at the definitive caliber to carry by now, even when comparing the same ammunition. {Again, the correct deduction, there is no one test medium that will reveal ALL wounds to the human body. I do have more that 35 retrieved Gold Dots from shootings to all areas of the body. Some that hit only skin and soft tisue with penetration less than 6 inches, no clothing and no bones hit; shot from 5 yards (9mm and .40) from a weapon barrel length of 4.25 inches. Gel tests reveal deeper penetration as well as "reliable" expansion; this was not the case in some of these patients. I challenge Dr. Roberts or anyone else to demonstrate close to 100% correlation of gel tests to human hits. Where is the deeper penetration? This is simply an example of the biased claims of those that promote ballistic gel as the sure answer to wound ballistic correlation in the human body. Atleast I can see in the human body and question ballistic dogma with cases such as mentioned. The hog shots reveal alot, not everything...they are not human bodies but atleast I can better 'infer' and judge the incapacitation potential better than a gel hit.}



As far as other, as you claim, similiar bullets to LeMas, where are they with their live tissue data. I would be happy to dissect an animal shot with them as well as LeMas and lets see what the live tissue looks like. The point is that the handgun rounds are different, not replicated by any other manufacturer I am aware of and the rifle rounds haven't yet been replicated in a reliable way that has this type of wound ballistics information (in the 2 calibers I witnessed with LeMas, the .223 and .308) Are they armor piercing and can still demonstrate the terminal ballistics I described? If they can , great. The entire thread is based on an ammunition that claims to have a greater wounding potential and be armor defeating, both handgun and rifle rounds and that when they are fired into gel (at least the 9mm) that there is NO correlation to the wounding in live tissue. I am getting tired of sounding like a broken record but no new arguments against my observations have been brought forth: no other live tissue data and no explanation of results that I witnessed with such 'failures' in gel.
ss

I forgot to add: I have never cared for a patient hit with a 'varmit' round and when I asked 30 of my colleagues around the country in major trauma centers, either have they. We see mostly handgun related injuries and <10% rifle injuries. I have no first hand knowledge about the wound ballistics of these rounds. I chose the Gold Dots as an example because they are so common with LE...I have many more types of rounds that I could discuss

[swatsurgeon]

Odd Job,
I forgot to add something to one of your comments.....
you wrote: I am certain that Dr Roberts reads this thread, but even if he didn't I wouldn't get involved in any sort of relaying of messages between individuals of PS and TF.
I would not ask you to relay a message; I asked that you pose a question to him (on TF.com) just as you posed one to me and see his response.

ss

[Odd Job]

@ TR

You have read me wrong here, that's not what I'm trying to do.
If SS interprets my post the same way you did, he need only say the word and I'll be on my way.

As regards what you said here:

Incidentally, you are leaping to conclusions, such as the source and composition of the rounds, which while accepted as gospel on other sites, may or may not be valid. Certainly they call your own objectivity into question.

Charles Arbuckle posted about the LeMas rifle bullets being proved by Dr Roberts as being off the shelf ammunition and I made the comment thereafter that so far nobody here has refuted that. I wasn't the one who opened that door. Can somebody from LeMas please make an official rebuttal to what Charles Arbuckle posted so that we don't get into this kind of argument? I feel like I am taking three steps back now, because now the projectile is a variable (or is it?)

What concern is it of yours who set up the test protocols or what his opinion of the marketing claims are?

I am not trying to find out who set up the protocols, I am trying to exclude SS from those protocols. That exclusion is not to his detriment it is to his benefit. As for his opinions of the marketing claims, they are relevant to his analysis of this ammunition, especially since he stands by them and he is in a position to verify/substantiate them. I have a problem with some of the claims, and SS's evaluation of the effects of the ammunition in the test is of interest to me where it correlates with the advertised properties of the projectile. Where it does not 'gel' I am interested to know why. Is it a marketing problem or a failure of the round? I would assume the end-user would want to know too. That is what a review is all about IMO.

[The Reaper]

@ TR

You have read me wrong here, that's not what I'm trying to do.
If SS interprets my post the same way you did, he need only say the word and I'll be on my way.

As regards what you said here:

Incidentally, you are leaping to conclusions, such as the source and composition of the rounds, which while accepted as gospel on other sites, may or may not be valid. Certainly they call your own objectivity into question.

Charles Arbuckle posted about the LeMas rifle bullets being proved by Dr Roberts as being off the shelf ammunition and I made the comment thereafter that so far nobody here has refuted that. I wasn't the one who opened that door. Can somebody from LeMas please make an official rebuttal to what Charles Arbuckle posted so that we don't get into this kind of argument? I feel like I am taking three steps back now, because now the projectile is a variable (or is it?)

Here is your quote, in case you forgot:

"And that, sir, is the rub. Because the projectiles are off-the-shelf and are common to both LeMas and those ammunition brands/types with which those spitzer-type bullets have been traditionally associated. I would like to know if that nurtures any curiosity in your mind as to what the contributing factor/parameter is, with regard to the obvious difference in performance between the LeMas ammunition and the equivalent ammunition as commercially available today, which has the same projectile."

You are stating this as fact. It is not. Period. GKR himself has admitted that the pistol bullets are unique. The rifle bullets' origin and status is debatable, as the manufacturer has stated that they are not identical to COTS bullets. There is NO COTS loaded round available that I have ever encountered that will do what the LeMas rounds do. If there is, please provide me with the opposing live tissue tests of their ammo. I refuted Charles Arbuckle's (if that is his real name) comments to my satisfaction. I take it that you did not read my comments, disagreed with them, or chose to ignore them?

I am not trying to find out who set up the protocols, I am trying to exclude SS from those protocols. That exclusion is not to his detriment it is to his benefit. As for his opinions of the marketing claims, they are relevant to his analysis of this ammunition, especially since he stands by them and he is in a position to verify/substantiate them. I have a problem with some of the claims, and SS's evaluation of the effects of the ammunition in the test is of interest to me where it correlates with the advertised properties of the projectile. Where it does not 'gel' I am interested to know why. Is it a marketing problem or a failure of the round? I would assume the end-user would want to know too. That is what a review is all about IMO.

This was not your test. You did not set it up, pay for it, or attend it. You do not establish the protocols for this live tissue testing. You are not conducting a peer review of the protocols. You should be asking questions or providing commentary on the LeMas ammunition's performance in live tissue, better yet, as it relates to radiological testing.

I represent an end user. Frankly, as a soldier (or were I a cop), I do not care a whit what they are made of, where they come from, or how they do what they do. The rounds penetrate all of the armor that I have shot far better than any conventional design. Yet they do not overpenetrate. They create wounds in live tissue beyond any round I have ever seen fired. I have never seen a performance failure in which the round did not perform at least as well as advertised. Dr. Vail has attested to the efficacy of the round in live tissue. What marketing claims has he made? None, as far as I know, as a physician, he has only made performance claims. Can you refute them? That is the point of this review.

You have presented your creds as a radiological tech, and been accepted as such. Dr. Vail is a board certified trauma surgeon who has provided informed commentary on the performance of the ammo in live tissue. Again, he did not make any marketing claims beyond that. Do you have any further questions about the performance of the LeMas ammunition within the parameters of Dr. Vail's article? If you intend to analyze marketing claims or projectile properties on a thread dedicated to bullet performance in live tissue you are off topic, not germane to the issue at hand, and will not be tolerated.

Frankly, we are looking for another physician with creds as a trauma surgeon, pathologist, etc. to participate an informed discussion on Dr. Vail's findings as to what the ammo does or does not do in live tissue. For the physician to have hands on experience with wounds inflicted in live tissue by the LeMas, as Dr. Vail has, would be an added bonus. Gary Roberts is welcome to post on this thread, or start a new one, with comments relating to the ballistic performance of the LeMas ammunition in live tissue. Entertaining your curiosity about peripheral matters is not the focus of this thread, Sir, nor will it become so.

Again, if you have questions or comments relating to the performance of the LeMas ammo (or conventional ammo) in live tissue, or wish to comment on radiological protocols you would like to see from the next shoot, feel free to contribute. I hope that you understand and respect that.

Anyone who does not should stay out of this discussion.

TR

[Odd Job]

Edit: I started writing this post before TR's post above, and finished after him.

@ SS

{Finally, you see the very point being discussed from the perspective and commentary originally offered. }

Actually there is a lot that we agree on (refer to my first post here). I haven't changed my mind about anything and it wouldn't matter if you disagreed with me at all. I had those perceptions about the variable configurations of gunshot wounds long before I came here.

{Again, the correct deduction, there is no one test medium that will reveal ALL wounds to the human body. I do have more that 35 retrieved Gold Dots from shootings to all areas of the body. Some that hit only skin and soft tisue with penetration less than 6 inches, no clothing and no bones hit; shot from 5 yards (9mm and .40) from a weapon barrel length of 4.25 inches. Gel tests reveal deeper penetration as well as "reliable" expansion; this was not the case in some of these patients. I challenge Dr. Roberts or anyone else to demonstrate close to 100% correlation of gel tests to human hits.

It is never going to happen, because humans are not shot under laboratory conditions or even under the conditions that those pigs were shot. We are in agreement there. Shot placement is also not controlled in real shotings. In fact I got so tired of people on TFL saying 'So-and-so got hit x times by bullet y in the chest and didn't die' that I spent a whole day making 3D graphics for them just to outline the incident trajectory variables alone. If you go there you will see it, I spend a lot more time there than TF or PS. I've always said that no two gunshot wounds are the same and that no gunshot wound can be emulated in gel with absolute accuracy. There are too many extra variables involved with real life gunshot wounds. On this we surely agree.

Where is the deeper penetration? This is simply an example of the biased claims of those that promote ballistic gel as the sure answer to wound ballistic correlation in the human body. Atleast I can see in the human body and question ballistic dogma with cases such as mentioned.

You have several examples of failed Gold-Dot hits and I would like to use that to answer this. There is no doubt that the sub-optimal hits in those cases were not predicted by the performance of those Gold-Dots in gel. That's clear. Likewise not all of those sub-optimal hits can be attributed to failure of the ammunition itself, for the variables involved in those shootings may be out of the parameters of use as specified by the manufacturer, and out of parameters where the cause of the failure to penetrate can be found. A typical example is a weapon fired from within a pocket (unlikely with LEO shootings I know, but that is the sort of thing I mean). Distance and intervening materials and the angle of incidence all play a role in this and they aren't variables that get tested in laboratories as far as I know. Yet, despite these failings and despite the fact that the gel tests did not predict them, do you agree that the Gold-Dot in general remains a fine defense bullet in service handguns? Perhaps one or two of those rounds were defective, who can tell? But those variables and those failures must (at least in part) happen to all brands of ammunition, even LeMas. There is no magic bullet...

The hog shots reveal alot, not everything...they are not human bodies but atleast I can better 'infer' and judge the incapacitation potential better than a gel hit.

I would like to see comprehensive documentation of the LeMas handgun ammunition in those cases, especially the X-rays.

As far as other, as you claim, similiar bullets to LeMas, where are they with their live tissue data. I would be happy to dissect an animal shot with them as well as LeMas and lets see what the live tissue looks like.

Somebody needs to do that, I agree (in terms of the rifle ammo).

The point is that the handgun rounds are different, not replicated by any other manufacturer I am aware of...

That has been my view too

...and the rifle rounds haven't yet been replicated in a reliable way that has this type of wound ballistics information (in the 2 calibers I witnessed with LeMas, the .223 and .308) Are they armor piercing and can still demonstrate the terminal ballistics I described? If they can , great. The entire thread is based on an ammunition that claims to have a greater wounding potential and be armor defeating, both handgun and rifle rounds and that when they are fired into gel (at least the 9mm) that there is NO correlation to the wounding in live tissue. I am getting tired of sounding like a broken record but no new arguments against my observations have been brought forth: no other live tissue data and no explanation of results that I witnessed with such 'failures' in gel.

I think the LeMas rifle ammunition is going to be a contentious topic and perhaps at this stage of the game, it would be better if I don't say anything more about it. We haven't hit an impasse yet, but I feel it coming in a few posts time if I talk about it any further. It is going to be difficult to compare LeMAs to similar cartridges when we don't have an official statement from LeMas about the projectiles used. This reflects also in my response to TR above.

I forgot to add: I have never cared for a patient hit with a 'varmit' round and when I asked 30 of my colleagues around the country in major trauma centers, either have they. We see mostly handgun related injuries and <10% rifle injuries. I have no first hand knowledge about the wound ballistics of these rounds. I chose the Gold Dots as an example because they are so common with LE...I have many more types of rounds that I could discuss

Those figures are similar to ours in Johannesburg. More than 90% of all the gunshot wounds I have seen are due to handguns. Otherwise we see AK-47 and R5 (a Galil derivative) injuries and the odd shotgun wound. I have seen several examples of those first hand and I am guessing that some features of the R5 wounds (5.56mm) will be similar to those caused by a 'varmint' round.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g154/Odd_Job/R5_Rifle_Injury

[Odd Job]

@ TR

Here is your quote, in case you forgot:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Odd Job
"And that, sir, is the rub. Because the projectiles are off-the-shelf and are common to both LeMas and those ammunition brands/types with which those spitzer-type bullets have been traditionally associated. I would like to know if that nurtures any curiosity in your mind as to what the contributing factor/parameter is, with regard to the obvious difference in performance between the LeMas ammunition and the equivalent ammunition as commercially available today, which has the same projectile."


You are stating this as fact. It is not. Period. GKR himself has admitted that the pistol bullets are unique. The rifle bullets' origin and status is debatable, as the manufacturer has stated that they are not identical to COTS bullets. There is NO COTS loaded round available that I have ever encountered that will do what the LeMas rounds do. If there is, please provide me with the opposing live tissue tests of their ammo. I refuted Charles Arbuckle's (if that is his real name) comments to my satisfaction. I take it that you did not read my comments, disagreed with them, or chose to ignore them?

Actually no, that is not the post I am talking about. The post I am talking about is this one (from 2 weeks ago, the first post I made after Charles posted):

There has been (as yet) no rebuttal or evidence from any of the key players who have a financial (or otherwise tangible) stake in the LeMas product, to the effect that what Charles Arbuckle posted is not true. In other words there is no effort to refute the claim that some LeMas 'spitzer' projectiles are rebranded OTS commercial projectiles.

Nowhere have I claimed that all the LeMas projectiles are off the shelf bullets. That's why I use the description 'spitzer.' I apologise if that is the source of misunderstanding. I don't mean any disrespect to you but I did not find your explanation/response to Charles Arbuckle helpful.

To progress now, I am no longer going to make comments or post anything to do with the LeMas rifle bullets. I'll keep those comments for another time and place.
So to clarify now: I am interested in the LeMas handgun ammunition, and if you like, I can restrict my observations to the X-rays. I'll wait until they are available.

Is this acceptable, sir?

[The Reaper]

There has been (as yet) no rebuttal or evidence from any of the key players who have a financial (or otherwise tangible) stake in the LeMas product, to the effect that what Charles Arbuckle posted is not true. In other words there is no effort to refute the claim that some LeMas 'spitzer' projectiles are rebranded OTS commercial projectiles.

To my knowledge, there is only one person posting here who has a financial interest in the LeMas ammunition, though there may be several who have an interest in seeing it fail.

As I have explained previously, the manufacturer has repeatedly informed LeMas that the projectiles loaded in the LeMas ammunition are not the same as the COTs bullets they resemble. I have pulled a few rounds and they do look like the bullets GKR has suggested they might be. I do not have the ability to make that call, and I suspect that LeMas does not either. Charles Arbuckle made several claims. Some of them seem to be rather incredible. LeMas has said that they have assurances that the claims that the bullets are COTS is not true. Until someone has conducted comparable testing with the COTS bullets in ballistic gelatin, live tissue, and armor, I think that the allegation remains just that. He may be right. Or he may not. I would like to see the terminal ballistic testing which substantiates that claim.

In the quote that I cited, in your second sentence, you clearly stated that the projectiles are off the shelf ("Because the projectiles are off-the-shelf and are common"). That citation was the basis for my statement that you had claimed that all LeMas ammunition was off-the-shelf. If you meant that an unsubstantiated claim had been made that the rifle projectiles were COTS, then that would have been a correct statement.

To progress now, I am no longer going to make comments or post anything to do with the LeMas rifle bullets. I'll keep those comments for another time and place.
So to clarify now: I am interested in the LeMas handgun ammunition, and if you like, I can restrict my observations to the X-rays. I'll wait until they are available.

Is this acceptable, sir?

That is more than acceptable. I have no problem with you posting on this thread as long as it remains respectful, professional, and relates to the topic of Dr. Vail's article, specifically, the wounding characteristics of the LeMas ammunition in live tissue. I believe that everyone involved has agreed that better X-Rays need to be taken at the next LeMas live tissue shoot (probably with portable veterinary gear), and that you will be provided with those X-Rays. If you have some specific radiographic requirement (beyond what you have already mentioned) that you think would be beneficial to the test, I am sure that all attempts would be made to accomodate you.

I would really like to see Gary Roberts participate in this discussion with an eye towards his attendance at the next LeMas live tissue shoot.

TR

[swatsurgeon]

All,
I do find it interesting that what started out as an observational commentary and reasonable questioning of a status quo (interpreting wound ballistics in tissue from gelatin) has evolved into a professional degradation of me by those at TF.com. It is amusing to see the level of immaturity displayed by a few on that site. I happen to have a sense of humor, what I don't have is a desire to publically ridicule someone as has been done on TF.com.
I hope they never have the opportunity to need a Trauma Surgeon that knows how to operate on them, understanding ballistics enough to help guide pre-operative and intra-operative procedures based on life threatening/emergent injuries on any part of their body.
In what should have been an intelligent discussion between those of us that have witnessed/used the LeMas ammunition on live tissue and those that feel that it does not do what is claimed is lost because of the lack of respect for those of us that simply state observations and use our intelligence to offer reasonable explanations and questions of standards that don't appear to apply to a different technology(LeMas).
I have seen no person from any internet site or ammo manufacturer offer to do live tissue shoots with any ammo that is similiar or the same as the LeMas rounds since a contention is that it may be an available round packaged differently. Well then, let someone load a 'varmint' round into a .223 or .308 and any other available round into a 9mm and .45 handgun and lets go shooting. And it must perform exactly as the LeMas does: armor penetrating and causing the same degree of tissue damage after passing through armor; as well as applying to the Blackwater shootout to be glass defeating to match the LeMas results. There are other Trauma Surgeon that have dealt with hundreds/thousands of GSW victims that will come to verify what I have seen and offer a 'different' perspective at a shoot of other 'similiar' ammo. If people are so sure of their beliefs, put them to the test, therefore a scientific paradigm will be established.
I am willing to learn that I am possibly incorrect in thinking that another ammo can't do the same tissue destruction and demonstrate the same properties as LeMas, is anyone from TF.com willing to state the converse?
Until such proof exists, then I have no concerns that what I saw was not unique to LeMas ammunition. I also have the proof that the correlation to gel for the LeMas 9mm doesn't exist. It performs differently in live tissue than in gelatin; this can not be disputed.
Bullet manufacturers base their development on results in ballistic gelatin; I again ask, is it not a modern scientific standard to develop a new test medium if a new technology is created/shown that doesn't fit the existing one: answer is yes in every lab I have ever been in. Just call up to the Penn State lab I referenced or any other lab that deals in new ideas and developments.
Time to deal in reality instead of protecting past beliefs.

ss

[dr. mabuse]

ROGER THAT SIR!

Again, the patience and professionalism on this forum is amazing.

Thought about you and TR and the others when a 21 year old TF.com fan/ballistics expert tried to hijack my CHL class last Saturday after I mentioned RBCD ammo.

I patiently replied, " For our ammo requirements, we don't particularly care how we get there, just as long as we get there. Right?"

He failed to have a snappy comeback for that comment. :munchin

[swatsurgeon]

Here is a link to a parallel thread post that is written by an LEO...fits right in to our discussion.
I just wonder if the loudest TF.com moderator would like to call him a quack as well?

ss

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11330&page=2 (see#17)

[MRF54]

Yawn... stretch... yawn...

Is anyone doing anything for data?

[swatsurgeon]

MRF54,
What sort of data; data is a relative term. There is no official human autopsy data, there is matched cohort animal data, there is armor and glass data.
There is an LEO that has posted here that has data from tests he performed comparing standard duty ammo used by his SWAT/PD teams vs. LeMas. He only did 1 live tissue test, the rest were clay block backdrops behind typically encountered barriers/armor, etc.
Stan Bulmer can likely offer different data sets.....you need to be more specific.
TR has posted his data on a parallel thread for rifle.
I am hoping to get human data once the LeMas rounds are adopted by certain LE agencies that are planning on using it for their 'special' teams.....I have stated to a few of them that I would like to attend any autopsies or be put intouch with the Trauma Center caring for anyone shot with these rounds. We are a small enough network of Trauma Surgeons around the country that I should be able to get this information once this ammo is used.
ss

[Roguish Lawyer]

I want to cross-reference a post I just made in TR's test fire thread since it is relevant to the discussion here.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132752&postcount=20

[swatsurgeon]

RL,
that data exists...every day we operate on someone shot with a low velocity round (typical handgun,< 2000fps) you can refer back to an array of gel reports on the specific round to check the measured parameters: depth of penetration, degree of expansion, usual/unusual characteristics of permanent cavity and temporary cavity if it exists (demo'ed in gel block) but it states nothing else about the tissue injury. I find it amusing and have stated this in my commentary: if gel says penetration of "X", there is a statistically significant chance that it will not be "X" in the human body because gel can not take into account the heterogenicity of the body, i.e., too many tissue densities and irregularities as compared to consistant properties of gel. I have not seen any disclaimers on gel tests of overpenetration when the results state a penetration depth of 12-15 inches...there is alot of overpenetration in the real world which increases the liability to those relying on testing that states an 'optimal depth'. Not many humans are built exactly the same and bullet behavior is impossible to predict despite what proponents of gel testing claim. Gel is a single piece of information that can not be taken at just face value and that is what I am seeing/reading...this is dangerous in my opinion.

ss

[Roguish Lawyer]

Thanks, ss.

Based on everything I have read, I would expect that if you took two objects, one with constant density of X and one with layers of different densities (like say x, .8x, 1.2x, .2x, 1.5x, .5x), and fired the same type of round from the same weapon into each, you would see greater "damage" from the second round because the projectile is fragmented or otherwise affected by the sudden change in resistance as it travels through each layer of the second object.

Is this a worthwhile experiment or should I stick to legal stuff? ;) :munchin

[swatsurgeon]

It could be done but with several limitations. Great degree of difficulty duplicating shots into tissue...too many variables like at what point in the heart beat cycle are they, what stage of breathing, how well hydrated, muscle relaxed or contracted...in other words, organs move, have different volumes of blood, are constantly changing, etc. The 'experiment' could simply be correlating a known bullets behavior in gel and trying to find as many victims shot with that particular bullet and collect all of the characteristics of those shootings. What trajectory, depth of penetration, organs and tissue injured, type of surgeon operating (Trauma vs. non-Trauma trained), x-ray findings (trajectory, fragmentation, bone fx's, etc) My belief from observations having care for >1000 GSW patients is that the stated gel characteristics lend little information to the characteristics in the human body.
Gel simulates (?) human thigh muscle....and ONLY MUSCLE. How many patients are shot only and directly in the thigh....a great minority.
Gel imparts the bullet manufacturers a medium to "see" the characteristics of their bullet designs...not explain the tissue damage potential. Not one gel expert can counter this statement: has not been done in the past and will not be done in the future. There was a lab somewhere that had a manequin that was made of a polymer, that was anatomically correct that was doing experiments on blunt trauma and the effects/injuries on different tissues...I expect one day the same for ballistics but I haven't seen any so far other than autopsy or operating room experiences coorelating to previously done gel shots.
You have seen the pictures here in past posts I have put up of people shot with different calibers and all types of injuries that we can certainly repost next to their gel tests....it will tell you NOTHING in relation to the damage or lack there of in the body.

ss:munchin

[swatsurgeon]

I have recently been informed of 2 LE agencies that are one 'signature' away from using the LeMas ammo for their special teams and possibly their patrol officers. I have been in contact with several more that will be doing their own inhouse testing to compare, as per their policy for ammo choices, LeMas to their present duty rounds.
They are not restricted like the military interms of politics, don't put much on gel testing (their words, not mine) since real world is 'what it is', not from a lab.
I am glad that people have an open mind and are willing to challenge the status quo. The past is too protected and change is resisted simply because what is 'new' is not already common.
We need to question the integrity of the information available on wound ballistics referencing gel tests. Too many LE agencies, including federal ones have contracts for ammo that may or may not behave as gel states it should...this places other officers and the public at unnecessary risk.
I am proud of those that have stepped up to the plate and will allow progress to trump tradition.

ss

[Odd Job]

Advance notice:

I will be removing the off-site hosted images from my posts within the next day or two. One or two are duplicated on TFL, but for the rest I can provide them if requested (I can't see the utility of that at this stage though).

Regards OJ

[Ambush Master]

I am proud of those that have stepped up to the plate and will allow progress to trump tradition.
ss

This reminds me of a saying about West Point!!!

Hundreds of years of TRADITION, totally UNHAMPERED by PROGRESS!!!!

Later
Martin

[APLP]

Thought folks might find this interesting, as this info was pulled shortly after being printed...........

PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J. -- The Army has completed a detailed study of the effectiveness of its standard-issue M855 5.56mm ammunition cartridge that is used in the M16 and the M4 rifles.

The study found no significant difference between the M855 and commercially available 5.56mm rounds during close fighting.

A team of military, scientific, medical, engineering and law enforcement experts conducted the study for the Army’s Project Manager, Maneuver Ammunition Systems located here.

“All of the rounds studied performed in a band of effectiveness that will produce excellent results in real-life situations,” Col. Mark D. Rider said.

The study sought to answer whether any commercial, off-the-shelf 5.56mm bullets that perform better than M855 against unarmored targets in Close Quarters Battle might be available.

It was limited further to determining if the Army could quickly purchase and field a possible replacement for the M855 and did not consider replacing the current inventory of 5.56mm weapons with weapons of another caliber.

“This was not a caliber study” Rider said. “However, it did find that the current family of 5.56mm weapons and the older 7.62mm M14 have the same potential effectiveness in the hands of a Warfighter during the heat of battle.”

The study also showed an increase in lethal potential when the marksmanship technique of firing controlled pairs, i.e. firing two rounds in rapid succession, was used.

Rider said the Army will continue to study variations in performance that some Soldiers and Marines to criticize the M855 while the overall majority are satisfied with its effectiveness.

He also noted that researchers believe that interaction between the weapon and the bullet may be the root cause of “through-and-through.”

In arriving at these conclusions, the team developed ground-breaking tools and methodologies that apply sophisticated modeling and equipment normally reserved for the study of high-dollar systems such as tanks and artillery to less costly weapons for the very first time.

As a result, new standards for testing small caliber ammunition are emerging that will help bring the science of more costly system to individual weapon.

Rider said that his organization is beginning to study how commercially available rounds perform against common battlefield barriers like body armor, car doors, and windshield glass compared to the M855. Answers to these questions will help improve the lethal capability of the ground forces for decades into the future, he said.

[APLP]

To all of our PETA "friends," let it be known that Le Mas Ltd. did not make this shot! Le Mas Ltd. was not present for the filming of this shot. Le Mas Ltd. does not conduct comparative live tissue evaluations on defenseless ground hogs. Additionally, Le Mas Ltd. will neither confirm or deny the "rumors" of same type "one shot stop" live tissue devastation having been observed, with respect to current enemy combatants, in any location around the world.

Contrary to the majority of the "blog board innuendoes," Le Mas Ltd. is a compassionate and caring organization. We at Le Mas Ltd. believe all enemy "terrorist" combatants, which threaten the freedoms of all United States citizenry, democratic rule and freedom around the world, should be treated with the utmost respect. We agree that these "individuals" have the right to be treated with the same level of compassion, which they have commend to others.

[APD281]

I came back from the range yesterday evening and talked to Stan about how his Land Warfare .223 performed at longer ranges. I was shooting a factory built DPMS, 20" AR-15, Jewell trigger, 1-8 stainless , free float tube, with a 10X Leupold Ultra M1. Back in July I chronographed this ammunition in the 20" gun and got readings from 3764-3856 fps in 80 degree weather. I had only tested this ammunition through barriers but I had not tested it for accuracy.
I noticed that Gene Econ had requested accuracy testing past 300 yards so I gave it a shot. I only had 10 rounds to shoot so the test is not conclusive, but it gives us an idea. The above rifle shoots sub MOA out to 800 yards with Factory 75 grain Black Hills and reloads. Stan did not think the Land Warfare bullet would be stable in my rifle so we were both surprised.

The following was shot prone with a bipod.

100 yards 3 shots 7/8" group


400 yards 3 shots 8" group

500 yards 3 shots 9.5" group

[Team Sergeant]

Stan did not think the Land Warfare bullet would be stable in my rifle so we were both surprised.



What would you expect from a guy that thinks an 11" barrel is a "long-gun".:rolleyes:

TS

[The Reaper]

What would you expect from a guy that thinks an 11" barrel is a "long-gun".:rolleyes:

TS

Did I miss something?

When did he say that?

I can see that only in comparison of an SBR, SMG, or the like with a buttstock in comparison to a handgun.

TR

[Team Sergeant]

Did I miss something?

When did he say that?

I can see that only in comparison of an SBR, SMG, or the like with a buttstock in comparison to a handgun.

TR


TR,

It was a "pun" aimed at Stan.

TS

[Gene Econ]

I only had 10 rounds to shoot so the test is not conclusive, but it gives us an idea. The above rifle shoots sub MOA out to 800 yards with Factory 75 grain Black Hills and reloads. Stan did not think the Land Warfare bullet would be stable in my rifle so we were both surprised.
100 yards 3 shots 7/8" group
400 yards 3 shots 8" group
500 yards 3 shots 9.5" group

APD281:

Thanks for the feedback. Although not perfect it is something. If I had known you just had ten rounds I would have asked you to shoot all ten for group at 300 if 300 was available. If not then 500.

Why would a 1/8 twist not be enough to stabalize these bullets I wonder? Obviously these bullets are lighter than 75 grains or at 3700 + FPS, your rifle would be in small pieces.

Gene

[The Reaper]

APD281:

Thanks for the feedback. Although not perfect it is something. If I had known you just had ten rounds I would have asked you to shoot all ten for group at 300 if 300 was available. If not then 500.

Why would a 1/8 twist not be enough to stabalize these bullets I wonder? Obviously these bullets are lighter than 75 grains or at 3700 + FPS, your rifle would be in small pieces.

Gene

Under 50 grains, IIRC.

TR

[Gene Econ]

Under 50 grains, IIRC. TR


TR:

So what? Unless these bullets are very long for their weight. A 50 grain 5.56 using conventional components is pretty short so a 1/13 or maybe a 1/14 twist is probably sufficient for stabalizing the bullet in air. An 1/8 will only overstabalize and in terms of military ammo for military purposes this is probably a good idea as it means a better ability to penetrate things harder than air. Unless the bullet jacket is too thin. They the bullet blows up in flight.

BTW -- the Fulton Uppers we bought for 1/25 SBCT SDMs all had a 1/9 twist. They killed folks pretty dead using the M-855. Why? My guess is that the 1/9 twist was sufficient for stability in air but not in much else so the issued M-855 bullets yawed and pitched faster when penetrating Martyrs and thus had a higher Pk given a hit. Also, these were 20 inch barrels that is (IMHO) the ideal length to inflict the best possible terminal effects at combat ranges using the 5.56.

Gene

[The Reaper]

TR:

So what?

Gene

My apologies, I thought you were asking for information about the weight of the bullets.

TR

[APD281]

Gene Econ,

The Land Warfare .223 bullets weight 45 grains and appear to be moly coated. I just received some .223 CQB, Harp II, and OTM loads today from Stan. I plan on doing some more barrier tests with them soon. At the end of this month or in November I'll test what is left at 300 if that is the distance you are interested in. Stan doesn't claim MOA accuracy. I shoot up close and at long distance so I understand your interest. The bullet's forte is hard armor penetration, massive soft tissue destruction, no overpenetration, and acceptable combat accuracy. I have not tested any other .223 that can offer these 4 things in 1 load.

Our department SWAT team currently uses Le Mas in 9mm, 45, .40, .223, and 308. We also use conventional ammunition as well.

I'll keep you posted.

[Gene Econ]

My apologies, I thought you were asking for information about the weight of the bullets. TR

TR:

Sorry, misunderstanding. It was due to the twist rate question. My 'so what' was in terms of their questioning a 8 turn twist for such a light bullet.

The question of twist rate and speed seems to come up with the Le Mas ammo many times and I am not sure why. The ammo should be depended on to function as long as the bullet is stable in flight and in a very wide band of speeds - or am I missing something?

Gene

[APLP]

TR:

Sorry, misunderstanding. It was due to the twist rate question. My 'so what' was in terms of their questioning a 8 turn twist for such a light bullet.

The question of twist rate and speed seems to come up with the Le Mas ammo many times and I am not sure why. The ammo should be depended on to function as long as the bullet is stable in flight and in a very wide band of speeds - or am I missing something?

Gene

Howdy Gene,

The question of bullet stability is effected by both rotational velocity and linier velocity. We estimate 365,000 as the rotational velocity where potential instability may occur for most of the Le Mas 5.56 product line. The twist rate and length of barrel affects both the RPM and launch velocity of a particular bullet. The Remington 26 inch bolt rifle with a 1/10 twist will produce less bullet RPM's at 4100 fps than a 16 inch 1/7 barrel that provides 3650 fps. We use both long barrel propellants and short barrel propellants. The short barrel propellants are used to optimize performance for dedicated short barrel weapons. When the optimized short barrel propellant ammunition is fired from fast twist long barreled weapon the maximum RPM’s for stable flight will be exceeded. When the optimized short barrel fast twist (1/7 twist) ammunition is fired from barrel lengths longer than the standard M-4 (1/7 twist) 14.5 inches, the rotational stability limits for a particular bullet can be exceeded. Additionally, many 5.56 barrel twist rates are not accurately labeled with just a 1/7, 1/8, or 1/9 barrel marking.

Of additional note, is that the Le Mas optimized short barrel, fast twist ammunition will also create greatly different pressure curves when fired from longer barrels with 1/7 twist rates. Some folks like Gary Roberts, can’t seem to get this information through their brain housing groups as they attempt to measure the short barreled ammunition case mouth pressures from inappropriate non ported test barrel lengths and twist rates. Le Mas uses long barrel dedicated propellants compatible from barrels which exceed 14.5 inches with a 1/7 twist.

The biggest lack of effective lethality from currently procured US Military 5.56 weapon systems occurs in the short barreled weapon systems. Le Mas has designed specific ammunition which optimizes effective combat lethality from either short barreled 1/7 twist barrels or long barreled 1/7 twist barrels.

Hope some of this explanation helps, standing by,

Stan

[fish78]

Which is correct for a 16 inch 1 in 7 twist barrel?

[APLP]

Which is correct for a 16 inch 1 in 7 twist barrel?

The 16 inch 1/7 is a gray area for the short barreled Le Mas 5.56 NATO LW, CQB, and OTM rounds. Some 16 inch 1/7 government agency AR's have shot the ammo well, while the Knight 16 inch 1/7 barrels 1/7 have demonstrated unstable trajectories. We advertise the short barrel 5.56 rounds to be optimized for the 10.5-14.5 inch 1/7 twist barrels.

There are some 18 inch 1/8 twist barrels that shoot the short barrel rounds well, and some which do not. The Le Mas short barrel 5.56 ammunition performance is optimized in the 11.5-12.5 inch 1/7 twist barrels with velocities around 3400 fps non suppressed. The same11.5-12.5 inch short barrel ammunition when fired from the 1/9 twist barrels are usually more than 200 fps slower. The 10.5 inch 1/7 barrels with Le Mas short barrel ammo will deliver 3025 fps, while the 10.5 inch 1/9 twist will average 2750 with the same ammo.

The 14.5-16.0 inch 1/8 or 1/9 twist barrels usually begin to accelerate the Le Mas 5.56 ammo faster than the same length 1/7 twist barrels. The optimum 16 inch 5.56 barrel twist rate would be 1/8 or 1/9 with the short barrel ammo. The optimum 20 inch barrel length using the same Le Mas ammo would be 1/9 twist.

The 16.0-20 inch long barrel Le Mas 5.56 ammo which is suitable for 1/7 twist is a separate product line form the short barrel ammo.

Clear as mud yet?

Standing by

[fish78]

OK Stan, I am sort of simple minded, are you telling me I need to buy the RBCD version or exactly what are you telling me?

[Gene Econ]

Howdy Gene,We use both long barrel propellants and short barrel propellants. The short barrel propellants are used to optimize performance for dedicated short barrel weapons. When the optimized short barrel propellant ammunition is fired from fast twist long barreled weapon the maximum RPM’s for stable flight will be exceeded. Hope some of this explanation helps, standing by. Stan

Stan:

Makes sense to me although it is kind of peculiar. Fast powder for short barrel and slower powder for longer barrel. Normally we do such things due to bullet weight but in your case I guess you are doing it to control the rate of spin through velocity, without blowing up a rifle or carbine.

Thank you

Gene

[APLP]

OK Stan, I am sort of simple minded, are you telling me I need to buy the RBCD version or exactly what are you telling me?

What is your question?

[fish78]

You said it was a separate product line, so are you saying it is the RBCD line or what? Your post was not very clear to me, as I said I am sort of simple minded. Which product suits a 16 in barrel with a 1in 7 twist...that is what I have...

[APLP]

You said it was a separate product line, so are you saying it is the RBCD line or what? Your post was not very clear to me, as I said I am sort of simple minded. Which product suits a 16 in barrel with a 1in 7 twist...that is what I have...

The Le Mas 5.56 product line is divided into either short barrel or long barrel product lines. The long barrel 5.56 ammunition will work just fine in your 16 inch 1/7 twist barrel.

There are 4 different 5.56 bullets we work with, which one flavor are you interested in?

[fish78]

Stan, this is my personal home defense carbine the need is for effective performance in flesh butwith out the risk of over penetration at modest ranges. I do not expect the range to exceed 100 yds and that would probably be very rare.

[APLP]

Stan, this is my personal home defense carbine the need is for effective performance in flesh butwith out the risk of over penetration at modest ranges. I do not expect the range to exceed 100 yds and that would probably be very rare.

PM sent

[Max_Tab]

I know it has been mentioned in passing a couple of times, but nothing deffinitive has been stated. According to the Geneva convention would we be allowed to use this ammo?

If someone answered this please post the link and I'll elevate. :D

[The Reaper]

I know it has been mentioned in passing a couple of times, but nothing deffinitive has been stated. According to the Geneva convention would we be allowed to use this ammo?

If someone answered this please post the link and I'll elevate. :D

The Deputy JAG, US Army has allegedly issued a decision paper that the round is too destructive for our military forces to use.

Curious, since some of his associates argue that the round is ineffective and does not work well at all.

IMHO, since we are not fighting Geneva protected opponents (no uniform, no recognized leadership, no compliance by them with the Conventions), then terrorists can legally be engaged by any ammo we desire (as some units have had long had exceptions to do with commerical hollowpoints).

OTOH, I think that the POTUS recently stated that we would afford full Geneva and Hague protection to our GWOT opponents.

I do personally not see why we cannot send our terrorist opponents to their just rewards as quickly and efficiently as possible.

TR

[Max_Tab]

The Deputy JAG, US Army has allegedly issued a decision paper that the round is too destructive for our military forces to use.

Curious, since some of his associates argue that the round is ineffective and does not work well at all.

IMHO, since we are not fighting Geneva protected opponents (no uniform, no recognized leadership, no compliance by them with the Conventions), then terrorists can legally be engaged by any ammo we desire (as some units have had long had exceptions to do with commerical hollowpoints).

OTOH, I think that the POTUS recently stated that we would afford full Geneva and Hague protection to our GWOT opponents.

I do personally not see why we cannot send our terrorist opponents to their just rewards as quickly and efficiently as possible.

TR

Thanks for the response, and I agree 100%. If it kills someone more effectively, who cares, they're just as dead.

[APD281]

A couple of months ago I got a call at 3:00AM from one of my comrades. He was excited to tell me that he had put down a deer that had been struck by a vehicle with the .40 Le Mas round I had given him. I grabbed my knife and went to his location to check out the internal damage. Upon arrival I saw a very large buck. I would estimate his weight at over 160 lbs. He had a hole in his upper left chest close to his neckline. My co-worker Mike told me that the deer had been hit by a vehicle and walked away. He found it laying on the ground 100 yards away. He appraoched the deer and he raised his head up. Mike shot the deer from about 15 yards out. It was lying down with it's head up. The shot entered at about a 45 degree from left to right. I was not impressed with the shot placement at first. After he described the deer's position, it didn't seem too bad. According to Mike after the shot the deer tried to get up, stumbled, and fell down. Mike approached the deer in order to check it's status. The deer raised it's head slowly and Mike shot it in the back of the head. Mike said that the deer could not get up. I began tracing the bullet path from the entry point. The bullet went through a rib and into the lungs. I put several fingers of my right hand into the chest and pulled out shredded lung and blood. I could not tell if the heart was hit or not, but at least 1 of the lungs was destroyed. My fellow co-workers and I have shot numberous deer in similar situtations. I have never seen this kind of internal damage from a conventional JHP .40, .45, or 9mm. I still haven't found a 2 legged volunteer to test these round on, but our SWAT team is loaded up with Le Mas for entry work.

[brianksain]

Edited.

BK