PDA

View Full Version : LeMas Test Fire


The Reaper
07-05-2006, 23:34
Gents:

Took a bunch of ammo, guns, suppressors, and the Chrony to the range today. I was the only shooter for chronographic testing of the ammo.

Test rifles consisted of a 14.5" 1x7" twist Colt M4 upper on an Eagle Arms lower and a 10.5" 1x7" twist LMT carbine. There was a 4x Trijicon RCO on the M4 and the LMT sported an EOTech 552.

Test pistols consisted of an HK P2000 in .40 S&W with a 3.5" barrel, and a Para Ordnance P-12 in .45ACP, also with a 3.5" barrel.

Two suppressors were used, both SureFire, one FA556A on the M4 and an FA556K on the LMT. The SureFire is compact, extremely durable, and has the distinction of being, as far as I am aware, the only suppressor oin the market with almost no shift in point of impact whether the suppressor is mounted or removed. This was verified yet again last week in a shoot we attended with the Trijicon Mil/LE Sales team at the Crucible compound.

Test ammo for the rifles consisted of PMC 55gr. FMJBT Match, Black Hills 77gr. BTHP-Match, LeMas 40gr. CQB, and LeMas 45gr. Land Warfare. The .40 S&W pistol ammo consisted of Winchester Ranger 155gr., CorBon 135gr., and LeMas 77gr. CQB. The .45 ammo was solely to determine the MV of the LeMas 85gr. load.

LeMas informed me that the CQB is actually intended for longer 16"-20" barrels and the LW is specifically designed for max velocity from the 10.5-14.5" 1x7 twist barrels. They have also stated that all of their ammo is constantly being tweaked to improve performance and current production ammo should be faster and more consistent.

Chronograph was a ProChrono from CEI mounted on a tripod 15' from the muzzle.

Weather was clear and 95 degrees with a gusting 10-15mph crosswind. Any pressure problems with the ammo should have been exacerbated by the heat.

There was inadequate time to do any detailed accuracy testing, will attempt to do that at a later date. Suffice it to say that during testing, all rounds were fired from the bench and hit within a decent aggregate group, with vertical stringing due to the wide disparity in bullet weights. The ES would be a decent predictor of accuracy, a pretty reliable one over longer strings, if all of the bullets are relatively uniform and concentric to fly straight.

I fired three shot strings for velocity. I would have liked to have fired five to ten shot strings for better statistical accuracy, but had limited time and no assistant to record data.

I am not a scientist, a professional ballistician, or a Holiday Inn resident. These tests were performed by me to the best of my ability given the limitations I had. The conclusions that I reached are my own and I have not been compensated in any way for this test. The results are provided in hopes that others may find them of value.

The first rifle fired was the M4 without the suppressor.

The PMC 55gr. Ball averaged 2796fps with an extreme spread (ES) of an amazingly bad 100fps. This is right on the edge of the 2700fps threshold for reliable bullet fragmentation. The Black Hills 77gr. averaged 2451fps with an ES of 46, which is pretty high for their match load but is below any fragmenting velocity. The 40gr. LeMas CQB was moving out at a respectable 3327fps, or a little faster than the old M193 (similar to the PMC) would do out of a 20" M16, with an ES of 45. The LeMas Land Warfare was smoking along at 3538fps, with an ES of 48. Note that in this M4, the LeMas rounds were running at about the same ES as the high end match ammo from BH. Theoretically, that should bode well for the LeMas accuracy, but the proof is in the pudding, so we will reserve that call till we actually shoot for accuracy.

Next, I installed the SureFire FA556A suppressor on the M4 and repeated the test. The PMC picked up a little velocity and averaged 2802fps with an ES of 46. The BH liked the can as it picked up 12fps to an average of 2463fps, with an ES of a very low 14. The CQB picked up 36fps, which is typical of the FA556 and averaged 3363fps with an ES of a respectable 21fps. The LW set the bar for velocity with an added 51fps to make an average of 3589 at an ES of 28fps. From an M4, that is moving out smartly!

The 10.5" LMT carbine was new and had not been fired till today. It is very difficult to get a decent MV from such a short barrel and muzzle blast is significant. Those of you who used the XM177E2 without the suppressor know what I mean. The noise under the metal overhead was substantial. I hoped that the LeMas LW would give a decent burn in such a short barrel, as it is allegedly optimized for that purpose.

The PMC 55gr. made an average of 2480fps from the carbine with an excellent ES of 17fps. As we know, military 5.56 with a cannelure requires 2500fps to fragment at all, and 2700fps to do it reliably. I would not expect this round (similar to the M193, but apparently somewhat slower) to fragment from this barrel length, and the M855 would be even slower and consequently, even less likely. This would result in a .22 hole in the target, which would get wider at the points the bullet yawed. The BH 77gr. was even slower at an average of 2224fps with an ES of 24. Good accuracy potential, but only a .22 hole in the target and very slow flying with a rainbow trajectory reminiscent of the .45-70 or 40mm grenade. The 40gr. CQB, despite not being optimized for such a short barrel, still managed to average 3028fps but the ES was an unsat 81fps. The 45gr. LW lived up to its billing and generated an average of 3128fps, but also with a big ES of 66fps. This is flat out flying from such a short barrel. If it is accurate enough to hit the target (and it should be a much flatter shooting round than the M193, M855, or Mk 262), I would expect this bullet to make the 10.5" carbines a serious threat out to several hundred meters. I would like to be able to determine the velocity and drop out to longer ranges. Looks like I need to drag out a ballistics program and do some work.

I installed the SureFire FA556K suppressor on the little LMT carbine and kept shooting. The PMC somehow managed to lose 45fps to average an MV of 2435fps with an ES of 43fps. The BH made only an average of 2223fps but the ES of 11 was the best of the day. These rounds are going to do little to a target but punch a neat hole through it. Better go for a head shot. The CQB continued to run fast at 3011fps but with big velocity swings generating a bad ES of 88. On the other hand, the LW smoked out of the LMT with the can at an average of 3133fps, and an excellent ES of 14fps. This round with this combo turned the second best ES of the day and could be a very nice shooter.

Since I had the pistol and ammo, I also fired the .40 S&W HK P2000 with the ammo I had on hand. The P2000 is a great pistol, but with just a 3.5" barrel, there isn't a lot of time to make things happen. I suspect that a 4"-5" barrel would produce significantly better velocities for all rounds. The Winchester 155gr. was a decent performer, making an average of 1143fps with an amazing ES of just 9fps. The CorBon 135gr. load, which in its 10mm loading, has turned averages approaching 1600fps from my Delta Elite, was only able to make 1265fps average with an ES of 22 from the HK. The 77gr. LeMas smoked out of the pistol at an average MV of 1718fps, with a mediocre ES of 43fps.

Since I had the 85gr. LeMas in my P-12 carry pistol, I fired a string of 3 rouds to check it out as well. The ammo made an amazing 1791fps average from a 3.5" barrel, with an ES of 31fps. I have seen the same ammo in a 5" Para make 2300fps. That is phenomenal performance from a handgun, even moreso considering that is faster than the lighter 77gr. 5.56 round does from a 10.5" barrel. The LeMas .45ACP subgun ammo in a 10" barrel breaks 2500fps, as I understand it, and given the performance in shoter barrels, I have no reason to doubt it.

All of the ammo functioned perfectly in the rifles and pistols, there were no failures or stoppages. How was the pressure of the ammo? Not having test equipment, I recovered the majority of the cases fired and examined them. While this is nowhere near as accurate as an actual pressure or strain gauge, I have been shooting and reloading for 30 years or so, and I think that I am a pretty good judge of when brass is showing pressure signs. The PMC cases looked like they had seen little pressure. Primers were well rounded, there was no flattening, cratering or firing pin drag or flow. Given the low MVs, I can see why. The Black Hills cases were showing a bit more pressure. The primers were slightly flattened and the firiring pin impressions were deep. The LeMas rifle cases were definitely a bit warmer yet. Primers were significantly flattened, but there was no cratering or firing pin flow. These looked to me like typical warm match loads, certainly no red-lining with primer pockets blown or firing pin perforations I have seen from some shooters. The pistol ammo was a real shock. The Winchester was warm, flattening the primer pretty well and dragging the firing pin slightly, indicating that the pistol was unlocking before chamber pressures had completely dropped. The CorBon primers were not quite as flat, but were dragging the firing pin somewhat worse than the Winchester and two of the three were showing cratering. The LeMas? Those .40 cases appeared to me to be the lowest pressure of the three. Primers were slightly flattened and on two of the three cases, there was slight firing pin drag. The .45 LeMas clearly showed the least pressure of the pistol cases. Primers were barely flattened and there were no drag, crater, or flow marks of any kind. Looked very similar to the military .45 Ball cases that I have examined.

The Reaper
07-05-2006, 23:39
What can we conclude from this small test?

First, any serious, bet your ass testing needs to use a larger sample, more equipment, and better methodology. Having said that, if we accept these results as typical, we can see that there are some interesting trends. In the M4, the PMC (slower M193 clone) should be able to launch a bullet that will frag reliably, but only for a very short range. By 100-150 meters, the bullet has certainly dropped below the 2700fps certain frag threshold, and probably lost the 300 fps needed to occasionally break up and fragment. I suspect that the standard issue M855, being heavier and launching at a slower velocity, probably will not make reliable frag velocity very far beyond the muzzle of the M4. The BH 77gr. will not make frag velocity at all from the 14.5" barrel. The BH 77gr., loaded with a cannelured bullet as the Mk 262 for the military at a slightly higher velocity and pressure will not frag from an M4 for more than a few meters, and not at all from the shorty. The BH ammo does show excellent accuracy potential though, with generally consistent ES measurements. The LeMas CQB makes excellent velocity, breaking 3300fps from the M4 and 3000fps from the shorty, but seems from the ES numbers to be unsuited to the 10.5" barrels. IMHO, the LeMas LW round makes the 10.5" a viable option once you get out of a close indoor gunfight. Smoking at 3500fps plus from the M4 and over 3100 from the LMT, with acceptable to excellent ES numbers, (especially with the suppressor attached) the LW round seems to make the shorty carbines effective out to impressive ranges, possibly equal to or exceeding the performance of the M193 and M855 from a full 20" rifle. Determining the velocity and accuracy at longer ranges and the threshold velocities for the LeMas bullet to function would be necessary to substantiate that fully. Lab tested pressure data would also be desirable, but frankly, based on my observations today on a fairly hot afternoon, I am confident enough that I would carry the LW ammo as is in my shorty carbine.

The LeMas pistol rounds are flat out smokin' from even short handgun barrels. The .40 shoot verified what I suspected. I have burned through significant metal plate and soft body armor with the LeMas, even from short pistols like the P-12, and shot tissue with them with spectacular effects. IMHO, I have no problem recommending them for duty use for those with that sort of need. I am just glad that LeMas limits distribution of this ammo to military and LE customers.

I hope to hit the flat range soon to do an accuracy test through the same two rifles, and possibly add an SPR to check the BH and CQB in a longer tube. I would also like to shoot the M855 as a part of this test, or at least a comparably loaded 62gr. bullet, and swap the PMC for a better M193 clone, like the Winchester Q3131.

Hope this was of interest, sorry for the length. Time to sign off and go clean the guns!

TR

mugwump
07-06-2006, 08:06
Holy moly. Did you then grill TS's ribs and run a 5K after you cleaned the guns?

HOLLiS
07-06-2006, 09:07
TR, thank you for the excellent read and results. Unless there is some poor QC on the ammo, I would not expect the results to vary much if any using a larger test sample.

vsvo
07-06-2006, 10:16
Thanks for the excellent report, Sir. It is very informative and interesting.

Basicload
07-06-2006, 15:50
Reaper,

Your eval stated that the Lemas was optimized for 10.5-14in 1-7twist barrels, but arn't .mil M-4's and CQB-R's 1-9twist?

Typo?

The Reaper
07-06-2006, 16:07
Reaper,

Your eval stated that the Lemas was optimized for 10.5-14in 1-7twist barrels, but arn't .mil M-4's and CQB-R's 1-9twist?

Typo?

I think you are asking two questions here.

1. LeMas told me that the ammo was optimized for the shorties, specifically the 10.5"-14.5" 1x7 twist, and that running longer 1x7" twist barrels could cause pressure problems. APLP can speak for himself, but IIRC, he said that the ammo shot fine in all 1x9" barrel lengths. Clear?

2. I have no idea what twist your M4 might be, but all of the ones I have seen on the Army SF side were 1x7", or at least were marked that way. The two Colt contract M4 uppers that I have are 1x7" twist as well. Not sure what twist rate is in the issue CQB-R, I never got issued one, but I will ask one of the guys here who is issued one to check his and see. Not a procurement geek, so I have no idea what might have changed or be contracted for now. This LMT is a 1x7" marked barrel.

Based on those answers, I would say that as a shooter, all I need to know is not to put the Land Warfare in a 16" or longer 1x7" barrel. Again, APLP can give you the inside scoop, but I believe that he said all 1x9" barrels are GTG.

Didn't see any typos there, HTH.

TR

Roguish Lawyer
07-06-2006, 17:44
I am just glad that LeMas limits distribution of this ammo to military and LE customers.

I am not! :D

KevinB
07-06-2006, 18:11
All M4/M4A1's are 1:7 - the Mk18/ECQBR's are as well (LMT or the cutdown Colts).
In fact to the best of my knowledge ALL of the 5.56mm weapon in inventory are procured with a 1:7 twist rate since the A2 adoption, this included the Mk12 and other fuzzies.

My issue M4A1 says Property US Gov't :munchin

- and I once got to touch a Mk18 :rolleyes:

NousDefionsDoc
07-06-2006, 18:16
All our M4s and M15s are 1:7.

Basicload
07-06-2006, 23:25
Yeah I slept on that question and woke up thinking "why had I thought that the mid and shorties were 1:9".

Were our non-standard CAR-15's that we had in the 80's/early 90's 1:9? Maybe thats what I was thinking last night when I posted that.

Reaper,

Got it on the rest of the information. Thanks

The Reaper
07-07-2006, 08:42
BL, no worries, you made me wonder if I had been sleeping in class again.

I have been told that the BH Mk 262, Mod 1 special issue 77gr. BTHP-M launches at more than a hundred fps faster than the BH 77gr. I tested. Part of the reason for this is that the 5.56x45 NATO is loaded to higher pressure limits than the .223 marked ammo. As I mentioned, I will try to get velocity readings on the M193, M855, and Mk 262 next time I am on the range and have time.

The same source also told me that the Mk 262 will frag at velocities as low as 1900-2100 fps in ballistic gelatin, which if it also does the same in live tissue, should give it better performance than I anticipated.

This is turning into a science project.

TR

CPTAUSRET
07-07-2006, 09:31
The same source also told me that the Mk 262 will frag at velocities as low as 1900-2100 fps in ballistic gelatin, which if it also does the same in live tissue, should give it better performance than I anticipated.

This is turning into a science project.

TR


Good deal!

Amen to a "science project"!

APLP
07-07-2006, 10:04
FWIW, from what I have seen in live hogs the BH M-262 NATO ammunition when fired out of a 12 inch 1/7 twist barrel at 5 yards demonstrates very poor fragmentation characteristics with respect to either rear appendage or thoracic cavity impacts.

Should have some new tissue pics in the near future but I would expect similar results. I have been told that the M-262 also demonstrates very little live tissue fragmentation after penetrating soft body armor. Perhaps that can be documented as well.

The Reaper
07-07-2006, 21:32
Thanks for your input Stan.

Just back in from spending the afternoon on the range with Peregrino.

We tested more ammo, and this time did some accuracy testing. We also conducted a minor shooting clinic and two suppressor demos, which put us way behind schedule. Peregrino cannot miss an opportunity to teach and the suppressor does draw a crowd when they figure out what that strange sound is.

Temp on the range at McKellar's Lodge where we were shooting was 85 degrees and a gusty wind was blowing across the course at 8-15 knots. Elevation for the range is about 375' above sea level. When did you ever have a jump or a shoot when the wind did not come up squirrely?

All of the following velocity testing was done from the same 14.5" 1x7" M4 with the Eagle Arms lower and the SureFire FA556A previously used in the earlier test. This one was shot with an ARMS #40L BUIS.

This time, we shot five shot strings for velocity at 15' over a Shooting Chrony Master Chrony to take advantage of the remote readout and printer.

Enough details, on to the velocity testing. The 55gr. M193 was faster than the PMC, but not as much as hoped. Five rounds through the M4 with the SF can averaged 2904fps, with a disappointing Extreme Spread of 87fps. The 62gr. M855 (Green Tip) was surprisingly faster, averaging 2929fps, but with the worst yet ES of 107fps. That stuff was all over the chart. The 77 gr. Mark 262, Mod 0 clocked an average of 2658 fps, at an excellent 26fps ES. I added a lightweight JHP round as a control, the Federal American Eagle 50gr., which was slower than expected at 2952fps with a decent ES of 37fps. The 77gr. Black Hills BTHP-M made 2450 fps with an ES of 49. The 40gr. LeMas CQB made an average of 3306fps with an ES of 57. The 45gr. LeMas Land Warfare round set the record again at a blistering average of 3535fps but with an ES of 73. It was doing pretty well till the last round of the five shot string, which was the slowest of the shots tested, it bumped the ES from 52fps to 73fps. Thus the need to shoot more than 3 rounds for a statistically valid test. The Standard Deviation was not that bad for a 3500fps plus round, clocking in at 27.69fps.

Again, cases were recovered and examined for pressure signs. There were no excessive pressure signs noted. Curiously, the Mark 262 that I have and the LeMas use the same WCC 02 cases. The cases appear to be showing identical pressure signs. The primers are flat, but there is no cratering, primer drag, or flow. The other ammunition cases all appear to be within specs as well.

Murphy being ever present, as we were zeroing the M4 with a 20x scope for shooting groups, the optic refused to zero and I ran out of adjustment trying to set it up. I had to pull the scope off, and rather than shoot the BUIS or J-Point for accuracy, decided to shoot Peregrino’s precision AR for testing. It was built by our favorite long range rifle smith and has a Lilja 20” 1x8” twist barrel, and a 24x optic on top. The SureFire FA556A suppressor was installed throughout the accuracy shoot.

I fired five shot groups at 100 meters from a bench while rested on a gear bag. Some results surprised us. I was able to get the M193 to group a respectable 1.82 inches, which given the M193’s ES of 87, is remarkable. The M855 was even more surprising as five rounds grouped into 1.56”, despite an ES of 107fps. IMHO, this was an extremely good lot of M855, as the round frequently will not hold 3 MOA. The BH was predictably excellent placing five rounds into 0.544”. The LeMas CQB is not a precision round; I got a loose 2.4” group for the five rounds. Since the Land Warfare is not intended for longer barrels, I was uncomfortable shooting it for accuracy in the 20” 1x8” barrel of Peregrino’s rifle, so we stopped shooting. It was getting late, the rangemaster was shutting down, and we had other places to be. Like the GB Club. But I digress. I did take a moment to dump the remaining nine rounds of BH 77gr. from the 10.5” LMT carbine with the SureFire FA556K suppressor rapid fire into the 25 meter target, which you can see below. Not bad for an EOTech and a broken-down old trigger-puller.

In summary, the ammo generally reflected the performance from the previous test. The velocities were within 2% of where they were in the previous test, and given the different range, conditions, and chrony, is within tolerances. The 55 gr. M193 seems slower than I expected, but was a little better for accuracy than my experience would indicate. The 62gr. M855 seemed a little faster than anticipated, and was far more accurate than is normal. Either I found the best five rounds of M855 I have ever seen, or the Gods smiled on me five straight times while I pulled the trigger. The Mk 262 77gr. ammo was almost 200fps faster than the comparable BH 77gr. load. This is significant and will allow the Mk 262 round to fly flatter and longer, and be more effective when it gets there than the BH commercial match load. I did not have enough on hand to do the velocity and accuracy testing, but given that the Mk 262 had about the ES of the BH 77gr., it should be as good, or better than the BH. The 50gr. commercial Federal JHP was slower than I expected. I did not get to shoot it for accuracy due to time constraints and priorities. The 77 gr. BH shot like it did in the previous test, though the ES was significantly greater, it did not seem to have an effect on accuracy. That round wins matches regularly, and as a MOA load on a gusty day, I can see why. The 40gr. LeMas CQB also shot like it did in the previous test, though ES doubled and the match accuracy was just not there today. I had been warned that the CQB was not a precision round, so I was disappointed, but not shocked. 2.4 MOA will normally beat the M855 any day of the week, but not this time out. The Land Warfare, which continued to move out at a double time, doing better than 3500fps, will get accuracy tested the next time I am out with a high mag optic and a rifle with the right barrel. I hear that some of the shorty carbines can hold a pretty good group at 100 meters. We will try that out at our earliest opportunity.

Thanks for your patience, your suggestions, and your compliments.

Hope this helps. Time to clean the guns again.

TR

The Reaper
07-12-2006, 13:12
Any questions or additional comments?

TR

APD281
07-13-2006, 01:42
Reaper,

I have done accuracy testing and barrier testing with Le Mas ammo and it is an ongoing(probably never ending) project. I have a 9 page document that I have put together with the test results as well as a proposal for my department to adopt this ammo for special purposes. SWAT team members are exempt from the firearms and ammunition policy of the Department. FWIW The Police Department I work for uses the following conventional ammunition for patrol use: 9mm Federal 115 grain +p+, .40 Winchester 155 grain Silvertips, Federal .223 TRU 55 grain JSP, Federal .223 55 grain Tactical(bonded), and 00 buckshot for our shotguns. We have been satisfied with the performance of this ammunition in live tissue(dogs, deer, people, and other critters.) but you can't have too much performance. 5 years ago I shot a fella with the 9mm load and it shut him down instantly. Another buddy of mine shot a guy a year later with similar results. We are satisifed, but like always want for more. And, after reading up on Le Mas and speaking to Stan Bulmer I I decided to test Le Mas ammo. Specifically, .223 Land Warfare, .40 CQB, .45 SUBGUN, .45 CQB, 9mm CQB, and .308 Land Warfare. Le Mas gives us capabilites that have not been available in the past.
I wanted to test the Le Mas in the accuracy department as well as through common barriers that we may have to shoot through. In my tests it really shines! I have shot through glass, 4x4's, drywall, 2x6's, steel, and IIa, and IIIa vests with the handgun rounds. I have also done 25 and 50 yard accuracy testing with the handgun rounds. I have shot through wood, glass, and steel with the rifle ammo(.308 and .223) and done accuracy limited accuracy testing at 100 yards. The handgun ammo stays in the 9 ring of a B-27 at 25 yards. My buddy shot a 1.25" 3 shot group at 100 yards with a F/N SPR last.week(sandbagged) with the .308 LW Le Mas. I shot a 3.5" 3 shot group with the .223 Le Mas LW round, from prone at 100 yards. The .223 was tested from a 16" 1/9 twist Bushmaster upper with a 1.1x4 IOR scope. The handun ammo wiLL defeat IIa vests that stop conventional ammo cold. It also defeats much thicker steel than conventional rounds. In the SWAT entry world soft tissue over penetration is a great concern. last month our team raided a crack house. It was less than 1000 square feet and was flooded with 9 bad guys, 1 infant, and 8 team members. A bullet passing through a suspect in this environment is very possible and a total nightmare in this setting with conventional handgun ammo. Le Mas answers the call in this department like no other! I for one am sold. I sent a copy of all my tests to Stan.(As if he needs it) Let me know if you want a copy. I can possibly post all of them here, but I'll need a little help...I'm not very computer literate. I have it saved in Word.

Sorry this is so long winded.



Thanks for the welcome in the introductions.

Roguish Lawyer
07-27-2006, 19:28
Any questions or additional comments?

TR

I would be interested in a discussion of whether the higher velocity of the LeMas rounds explains (in part or otherwise) the different terminal effects in tissue vs. gelatin.

APLP
07-28-2006, 21:35
I would be interested in a discussion of whether the higher velocity of the LeMas rounds explains (in part or otherwise) the different terminal effects in tissue vs. gelatin.

RL,
With respect to the Le Mas Ltd. SRAP (Short Range Armor Piercing) handgun and rifle bullet design performance in living tissue, higher linear and rotational projectile velocities result in increased rates of deceleration and greater dimensioned distributions of bullet particulate. To generalize, the higher the velocity when impacting living tissue, the more effective the resulting destruction of living tissue will be. Higher energy living tissue SRAP impacts will also result in less probability for over penetration.

With respect to increased velocity SRAP bullet performance variables when impacting ballistic gelatin, there is no specific data. The 9mm CQB SRAP bullets which dramatically fragment in living tissue do not demonstrate either bullet core expansion or fragmentation when penetrating ballistic gelatin. I would guess that unlike conventional hollow point bullet designs, higher velocities achievable from functional duty weapons would not alter the bullet characteristics of those specific rounds.

Roguish Lawyer
07-29-2006, 16:54
RL,
With respect to the Le Mas Ltd. SRAP (Short Range Armor Piercing) handgun and rifle bullet design performance in living tissue, higher linear and rotational projectile velocities result in increased rates of deceleration and greater dimensioned distributions of bullet particulate. To generalize, the higher the velocity when impacting living tissue, the more effective the resulting destruction of living tissue will be. Higher energy living tissue SRAP impacts will also result in less probability for over penetration.

With respect to increased velocity SRAP bullet performance variables when impacting ballistic gelatin, there is no specific data. The 9mm CQB SRAP bullets which dramatically fragment in living tissue do not demonstrate either bullet core expansion or fragmentation when penetrating ballistic gelatin. I would guess that unlike conventional hollow point bullet designs, higher velocities achievable from functional duty weapons would not alter the bullet characteristics of those specific rounds.

Thanks very much, Stan. Seems to me there has to be some characteristic in ballistic gelatin that responds very differently than live tissue at these high velocities. Query whether there is a significant difference in terminal effects of lower velocity rounds in gelatin and live tissue as there is with the high-velocity LeMas rounds -- do we know this already? If not, I think it would be useful for someone (ideally swatsurgeon) to perform the same live tissue analysis on lower velocity rounds to see whether there also is difference between terminal effects observed in gelatin vs. live tissue.

Of course, I am not an expert. I hope no one is bothered by my lay analysis.