The dentist (Gary Roberts)

[Team Sergeant]

Seems the "dentist" is talking smack again..... :rolleyes:

And he will not discuss the issue with Trauma Surgeons on this board, he will however post anywhere he can explaining he is the "expert".

Funny how that works, a dentist knowing more about GSW's than a real trauma surgeon.

Even more amusing is when not one "real" trauma surgeon will agree with his findings........

Roberts is the only one I know that drinks his own kool-aid.

[AngelsSix]

Background, please!! I have no idea what or who you are referring to, TS, but I WANT to know!!:D

[PSM]

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11179&highlight=lamas

[The Reaper]

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11179&highlight=lamas

You should probably do the search for "LeMas" rather than "lamas", lest you find only misspelled animal references.

Or you could search for Gary Roberts, also known as DocGKR here, though he has never posted on this board, preferring to provide his terminal ballistic "expertise" elsewhere, relying on his fanboys to provide cover and moral support.

I guess if you want your trauma advice from a dentist, you should get your dental opinions from a trauma surgeon or a pathologist.:rolleyes:

Ask him how many rounds of LeMas he has fired into live targets.

I just wonder if the Navy approves of all of his public commentary and bashing of other people.

TR

[PSM]

You should probably do the search for "LeMas" rather than "lamas", lest you find only misspelled animal references.

Or you could search for Gary Roberts, also known as DocGKR here, though he has never posted on this board, preferring to provide his terminal ballistic "expertise" elsewhere where his fanboys provide cover and moral support.

I guess if you want your trauma advice from a dentist, you should get your dental opinions from a trauma surgeon or a pathologist.:rolleyes:

TR

Just pointing A6 to the thread. At least I didn't spell it "Alpacas". ;)

Pat

[Red Flag 1]

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11179&highlight=lamas

Thanks Pat.

Got it TS.

RF 1

[AngelsSix]

Thanks, guys, I did search, but wasn't sure if that was the right thread or not.

[dr. mabuse]

*

[koz]

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=693917#post693917

This is the thread. It also seems that there are several people there that are a bit bitter b/c they got their pee-pee slapped here.

[Team Sergeant]

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=693917#post693917

This is the thread. It also seems that there are several people there that are a bit bitter b/c they got their pee-pee slapped here.

Yes, my fav was the national guard PFC, (friend of the dentist), that told everyone he was in fact a Special Forces soldier, used his "SF credibility" to back up the dentist and was busted here.....

[echoes]

That thread was hilarious! Somebody call the WAAAAMBULANCE!

Reminds me a lot of my kids when they were, oh, about 5.

Indeed,

It seems as if there are those on "other" sites on the Internet, that are jealous! Reminds me of elementary school kids who are playing tether-ball on their playground. You could always spot those little tykes jumping up and down in place, in a temper tantrum, screaming about," I will go next!!!, I will go next!!!" Then seeing those little boys running away crying because no-one would listen to them!:rolleyes::boohoo

Holly...

[dr. mabuse]

*

[Sacamuelas]

Seems the "dentist" is talking smack again..... :rolleyes:
Why does it always have to be "the dentist"? There is a female Q course grad.... can I use the term "THE SF Soldier" from now on when referring to her. :D haha How about keith Idema ?

For the record... this mouth mechanic supports SYD in his conclusions about lemas...AND I slept in a holiday inn express last night. :lifter

[Team Sergeant]

Why does it always have to be "the dentist"? There is a female Q course grad.... can I use the term "THE SF Soldier" from now on when referring to her. :D haha How about keith Idema ?

For the record... this mouth mechanic supports SYD in his conclusions about lemas...AND I slept in a holiday inn express last night. :lifter

This "dentist" thinks he's a trauma surgeon, not a dentist. The way he passes himself off one would assume he's an M.D.

Gary Roberts, I know you're reading this, why don't you come on over and discuss your gelatin facts with some "trauma surgeons"?

I promise I'll stay out of it, in fact we'll only allow dentists and M.D.s to post.

I'm sure it will be exciting.....

Team Sergeant

[Tuukka]

No dog in this fight but;

- To my knowledge ballistic gelatin is still the most widely used and recommended testing method by terminal ballistics experts. No, not the same as shooting a human body, but the findings mirror quite closely the real life results and it is a viable testing method.

- Dr. Roberts posts on a number of websites ( LF.net, 10-8 forums, M4carbine, Tacticalforums ), where professional, vetted LE / MIL folks post as well, he enjoys a status on those forums as a very qualified expert in the field of terminal ballistics testing.

- I find it hard to believe that this forum would not benefit from his knowledge and that professional folks could not get along? I also find it hard to believe that the only "true" knowledgeable ballistics experts reside on just this forum, trauma surgeons or not.

[The Reaper]

No dog in this fight but;

- To my knowledge ballistic gelatin is still the most widely used and recommended testing method by terminal ballistics experts. No, not the same as shooting a human body, but the findings mirror quite closely the real life results and it is a viable testing method.

- Dr. Roberts posts on a number of websites ( LF.net, 10-8 forums, M4carbine, Tacticalforums ), where professional, vetted LE / MIL folks post as well, he enjoys a status on those forums as a very qualified expert in the field of terminal ballistics testing.

- I find it hard to believe that this forum would not benefit from his knowledge and that professional folks could not get along? I also find it hard to believe that the only "true" knowledgeable ballistics experts reside on just this forum, trauma surgeons or not.

Tuukka:

Not enough time to respond in detail here, but consider the following.

Ballistic gelatin was once accepted as the best tissue simulant. Given the failure of it to accurately replicate the performance of the LeMas in live tissue, I would say that in my experince, it is now proven deficient. I base that on the hundreds of rounds of LeMas I have personally fired, and more than 50 live tissue comparison shootings that I have personally witnessed. I am not a trauma surgeon, but the attending physicians' feedback, to include Dr. Vail's, parallel my own.

As I have previously mentioned, as a former SF soldier, I do not care what the bullets are made of or how they work. I just care that they do. And I do not care if they are sold by LeMas, Lake City, or Remington, or made by Sierra, RBCD, or Hornady. If they work in live tissue, but not in gelatin, and I cannot explain why, should I then not use them? I want to save my soldiers' lives, and kill bad guys dead, not have a debate on what the mechanism of destruction is and how it is not accurately simulated in ballistic gel.

I believe that Dr. Roberts (DDS) is an active promoter of himself as the pre-eminent terminal ballistics expert in the country, if not the world. He is essentially tagging onto Dr. Martin Fackler's work, but without the professional training and qualifications, as Dr. Fackler was an accredited trauma surgeon and pathologist with the credibility to compare terminal ballistic performance in ballistic gelatin with his real world trauma experience. The fact that the LeMas appears to work in live tissue, but not in ballistic gelatin is a refutation of his reliance on ballistic gelatin as a preferred medium and directly threatens his prosfessional credibility. I believe that he has decided to personally and professionally attack non-believers because of this.

Dr. Roberts has not been mentioned here for some time. He has a PS.com account, and has been asked to make his comments here that pertain to Lemas and members of this forum. Yet he has never posted. Instead, he chooses to go to another forum, and make remarks personally critical of TS and I. Why do you suppose that is? Dr. Vail was ripped to shreds and his professional reputation trampled at another forum you mentioned by a bunch of fanboys with zero medical or tactical experience. He was called a quack and his professional credentials questioned by people who have no creds, apparently at the behest of GKR and his supporters. Is that what passes for scientific method and prodfessional dialogue among the other boards?

I am sure there are lots of boards and forums with trauma experts. I really doubt that there are very many firearms and tactical boards with trauma surgeons who have the experience in gunshot wounds, have seen the use of LeMas in person, and who have had the opportunity to conduct necropsies on the number of post-LeMas shot live tissue targets that the physicians here have. Just as a courtesy, tell me how many board certified trauma surgeons you have encountered out there with those creds posting their results on the other boards you have cited. While you are at it, ask Dr. Roberts how many rounds of LeMas he has fired and how many necropsies he has conducted on the live tissue targets which were shot with LeMas.

In summary, I would be more than happy to hear Dr. Roberts comments here in an area where he has professional education and training, like dentistry. I would say that he and I agree on some issues and disagree on others. I do not automatically accept ballistic gelatin as the best simulant of terminal ballistics in live tissue, I do not accept his opinion on the terminal ballistics of the LeMas ammunition (based on my personal experience and observations) and I do not make a habit out of traveling all of the various tactical forums of the internet looking for opportunities to attack Gary and his character. Note that this thread was opened in response to an unprovoked personal attack on TS and I on another board. Is that the act of a man with character?

Again, I challenge "DocGKR" to come here and present his professional explanation of why the LeMas rounds appear to function so well in destroying live tissue, but not in ballistic gelatin. Can he expalin how Dr. Vail's analysis of the same performance in live tissue is flawed?

[Surgicalcric]

Yes, my fav was the national guard PFC, (friend of the dentist), that told everyone he was in fact a Special Forces soldier, used his "SF credibility" to back up the dentist and was busted here.....

Ah yes...

That same PFC, now a CPL, is now in the SFQC and despite the 10 or so counseling statements he has received in just a couple months the command wont seem to get rid of him...

Crip

[Tuukka]

TR, that is a quite a thorough answer, thank you. I´ll buy the first beer at the next SHOT if you're there ;)

I am neither a ballistics expert or MD, just a person with an interest in these matters.

A bit of a reversal to your post, is it safe to say that those rounds that function reliably ( fragmentation, mushrooming etc. ) & are effective in gelating testing, are usually also quite effective in real life?

If LeMas is a such a great perfomer in real life, why is it not being utilized widely?

Your last challenge is quite valid, professionals should be able to discuss things in a rational and factual manner. I would really like to see all the facts brought to the table, with as many qualified individuals posting.

One of the main things I like about this site, is that there will be no juvenile piling up and BS against posters when things are being discussed.

[rubberneck]

That the dentist won't come here and stand and deliver ( although the facts are clearly on his side ), speaks volumes.

Reading that M4carbine.nyet link reminds me why I stay away from airsofter-type forums.

As far a jello shooters, that they don't appreciate the difference ( and limitations ) of qualitative vs quantitative studies is, er, interesting. And one clown throws down the "scientific method" argument in the middle of it all.

They are know-nothing, poser, children. IMHO.:D

I am a member of that forum as well. 95% of the posters there are good people who I would gladly share a cold one with. The other 5% I would't piss on if they were on fire. As far as it being an airsoft type forum it is very very far from that. There are several QP's from this forum and other assorted BTDT from across the street who are active members there as well as dozens of industry insiders. It is an excellent resource for people looking for technical info on the M4 and other related kit. The 5% who are typified by some of the posters in that thread can make reading some of the threads there very difficult. Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad.

[dr. mabuse]

*

[koz]

Let's not turn this into a "our forum is better than yours" thread. I do believe there is good information on many of the forums out there. But I also take a lot with a grain of salt. There are plenty of experts in this industry who have become experts by writing articles in SWAT, Guns and Ammo, etc.

I would hope that any expert would stay professional, even at the point of disagreement.

[Ambush Master]

Let's not turn this into a "our forum is better than yours" thread. I do believe there is good information on many of the forums out there. But I also take a lot with a grain of salt. There are plenty of experts in this industry who have become experts by writing articles in SWAT, Guns and Ammo, etc.

I would hope that any expert would stay professional, even at the point of disagreement.

I totally concur!! But, the FACT remains that the good Dr. GKR is registered here, has perused these Forums, but will NOT stand up in here, as a man should/would if he were all that confident in his "beliefs"!!!

Hide and watch/ wait and see!!!!

Later
Martin

[Sacamuelas]

There should be more debate on the issue before conclusions are asserted about a certain type projectile's performance. Both sides should present their information and force themselves to listen to the other evidence and conclusions.

I am a dentist too.... trust me, I know things. :D

[Sigaba]

4. Dr. Robert's passive aggressive nature is subtle yet annoying to me as well as he and his supporters fairly ignoring live tissue testing speaks volumes.You may want to grab your copy of DSM-IV-TR off your shelf and re-familiarize yourself with the definition of passive aggressive behavior.

[Red Flag 1]

You may want to grab your copy of DSM-IV-TR off your shelf and re-familiarize yourself with the definition of passive aggressive behavior.


Not sure of your training/experience/practice, but I would suggest a visit to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Satistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorde rs#Cautions.

The DSM, a continuing work in progress, clearly cautions that, "its use by people without clinical training can lead to inappropiate application of its contents. Appropiate use of the diagnostic criteria is said to require extensive clinical training, and its contents [cannot be simply applied in a cookbook fashion]. The APA, (American Psychiatric Association), notes diagnostic labels are primarily for use as a [conventional shorthand] among professionals. The DSM advises that laypersons should consult the DSM only to obtain information, not to make a diagnosis, and people who may have a mental disorder should be referred to psychological counseling and treatment".

If you have trouble connecting to Wikipedia on this topic, it could be that I got a character wrong. The bottom line is that, without being a credentialed, trained, and well practiced provider of mental health care, the DSM suggests, strongly, and cautions the layperson...regarding any attempt "to make a diagnosis".:lifter:lifter

My $.02.

RF 1.

[Sigaba]

Entire postRF1--

FYI, you are agreeing with me <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=285971&postcount=17)>> .;)

[dr. mabuse]

*

[swatsurgeon]

No dog in this fight but;

- To my knowledge ballistic gelatin is still the most widely used and recommended testing method by terminal ballistics experts. No, not the same as shooting a human body, but the findings mirror quite closely the real life results and it is a viable testing method.

- Dr. Roberts posts on a number of websites ( LF.net, 10-8 forums, M4carbine, Tacticalforums ), where professional, vetted LE / MIL folks post as well, he enjoys a status on those forums as a very qualified expert in the field of terminal ballistics testing.

- I find it hard to believe that this forum would not benefit from his knowledge and that professional folks could not get along? I also find it hard to believe that the only "true" knowledgeable ballistics experts reside on just this forum, trauma surgeons or not.



...but the findings mirror quite closely the real life results.. ........
Absolutely inaccurate statement. This is the foundation of my letters to the FBI ballistics lab as well as my commentary in national lectures. The human body is too complex an entity to be mirrored by gel to appropriately predict wounding. Gel remains a medium to compare predetermined bullet characteristics (in gel) that enable adequate comparison of only those characteristics (in gel), i.e., depth of 'penetration' of gel, measurement of a permanent and temporary cavity....in gel, not the human body. So far only Finland (that I have found) has utilized autopsy data, Trauma surgeon operative data, animal testing data, tissue simulant data and computer simulation data for a global database that can adequately predict wound ballistics. I have dealt with so many GSW patients as have colleagues of mine (that are all ballistically informed/educated...notice, I never said and will never say 'EXPERT', we are professionals) that will tell anyone who want to hear that gel does not adequately represent the human body when it comes to human body wound ballistics....gel represents gel wound ballistics only.

ss

[dr. mabuse]

*

[swatsurgeon]

Tuukka,
What you have stated is what the average person is given as truthful information by 'authorities'. It is up to the individual to believe or investigate what they hear to verify that information and with Google and other search functions at your fingertips, 'expert opinion' is becoming 'opinion' because we now have the tools to challenge those opinions and clarify/verify validity.

ss

[koz]

The thread on M4carbine was cleaned up and re-opened by one of the Mods. I believe the particular mod is a member here as well.

[swatsurgeon]

there are now attorney's advertising for internet defamation that injures reputations, work, etc......I actually had an attorney comment that I had a case from being slandered professionally (medically) when the original subject matter had no bearing on me as a surgeon but the discussion on the other board deteriorated into a smear of my professional character/reputation and practice...."dangerous territory" as per the attorney. I never pursued it but still have a print out of the entire discussion. It only takes one person to make a case if it negatively impacts my professional medical practice.

ss

[Tuukka]

Tuukka,
What you have stated is what the average person is given as truthful information by 'authorities'. It is up to the individual to believe or investigate what they hear to verify that information and with Google and other search functions at your fingertips, 'expert opinion' is becoming 'opinion' because we now have the tools to challenge those opinions and clarify/verify validity.

ss

Yes, I am complete amateur on this matter and have to rely on the professionals to present the facts, but doing a proper investigation behind the facts is some what hard being an amateur;) ie. a case of who's opinion to trust.

Here is a quote from the referenced thread;

From a terminal performance perspective gelatin is AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION TOOL to examine a bullet's behavior (penetration, deformation, fragmentation, and yaw) when it strikes and penetrates soft tissues.

From a wound ballistics perspective gelatin provides A REASONABLE INDICATION of a bullet's wounding characteristics in soft tissues.

If ballistic gelatin is not the best possible testing medium, is testing on animals or cadavers a better alternative?

Related to this matter, here is a doctoral dissertation by a person I have been involved with due to my work;

Jorma Jussila
Wound ballistic simulation : Assessment of the legitimacy of law enforcement firearms ammunition by means of wound ballistic simulation
https://oa.doria.fi/handle/10024/2120

[BrainStorm]

Some random thoughts...


Many of us were personally called out in the referenced thread started by Dr. Roberts. I will be visiting with the owner of M4Carbin this weekend to seek advice regarding responding to the factual concerns I have with that particular thread.

Council here would be appreciated as well.


One of the police departments he failed to mention that adopted LeMas and did conduct a study and was written about by an ex-FBI agent under a pseudonym is Coral Gables Florida. DocGKR stated he knew the FBI guy and thought him a good man. He was going to investigate and report back. To my knowledge, he never reported back. But his thread states that "every" PD that has done any investigation has rejected this ammo. Hmmm.


The use of ballistic gel and it's justification becomes a circular argument when you understand that new cartridges are accepted in the industry by performing well when tested in ballistic gel. Then field results are reported that they perform as expected by ballistic gel testing. With this method, cartridges that perform outside the parameters of ballistic gel have a hard time getting accepted in the industry.

When you design to the "test" you get results that work best with the "test." When I worked for a mechanical components company, I was responsible for the software that predicted the performance of the component in a customer design. These were industry accepted performance algorithms. When we came up with a new design that was outside the parameters of the performance prediction algorithms, it was extremely difficult to get our customer's engineers to take a chance on the new components.


Dr. Roberts is too clever by half in his carefully crafted statement about what the restricted (I mistakenly called it secret) report contains. When he says everything he found was substantiated, he avoids saying exactly what he found. Was it the results of cutting the bullets in half to challenge the Le Mas marketing characterization of blended? Or was there any live or cadaver tissue testing done? Inquiring minds want to know.

He did tell me to file a FOIA request, but when I attempted to do so, I was thwarted. Furthermore, if the report is not classified secret as he states, why can it not be shared on a one-to-one basis?


The primary reason I came to this forum is because SwatSurgeon hangs out here. I try to keep an open mind about evaluating products and I wanted to get a more balanced view then was available wherever Dr. Roberts held court.

[dr. mabuse]

*

[BrainStorm]

As promised, I visited with the owner of M4Carbine today. We discussed my concerns. He gave me some additional insights into Dr. Roberts. We agreed on ROE.

It is likely that I will push back on the errors of commission and more importantly, the errors of omission in the referenced thread. Some research is necessary so that I don't step into the same failing. I intend to compose carefully in order to avoid ad hominem attacks.

If any here want to assist me with information or proofread my response, feel free to PM me, and I will do the leg work.

Thanks.

[Ken Brock]

I have dealt with so many GSW patients as have colleagues of mine (that are all ballistically informed/educated...notice, I never said and will never say 'EXPERT', we are professionals) that will tell anyone who want to hear that gel does not adequately represent the human body when it comes to human body wound ballistics....gel represents gel wound ballistics only.

ss

well said

I put up some comparison pictures showing the same JHP that was fired into gel and into living flesh. I put them up here and on other forums

can you believe that some people actually told me that gelatin was "more relevant" than live tissue?

[Tuukka]

A few points, for which I'd want to generate discussion;

- It is quite obvious that the terminal ballistics of a new bullet or a bullet already in use need to be tested by the various manufacturers, organisations etc.

- As I wrote earlier, is it safe to say that those bullets that perform well in gelatin testing are usually also quite effective in actual shootings?

- If gelatin is not the best test material, what is the replacement? Bearing in mind it it most likely should be something readily available, uniform to conduct comparison testing, easy to conduct the testing with etc?

[The Reaper]

A few points, for which I'd want to generate discussion;

- It is quite obvious that the terminal ballistics of a new bullet or a bullet already in use need to be tested by the various manufacturers, organisations etc.

- As I wrote earlier, is it safe to say that those bullets that perform well in gelatin testing are usually also quite effective in actual shootings?

- If gelatin is not the best test material, what is the replacement? Bearing in mind it it most likely should be something readily available, uniform to conduct comparison testing, easy to conduct the testing with etc?

Live tissue is not homogenous.

Organs, fat, muscle, bone, etc. each have different characteristics and elasticity.

Ballistic gelatin is fine as a generic single density test medium for most ammunition. In some cases, the terminal ballistic performance is similar to its performance in live tissue. In others, it does not appear to be. I wonder how many rounds might have been effective in live tissue, but were rejected because of their performance in gelatin. Conversely, I wonder if rounds have been selected because of their superior performance in gelatin, but did not perform to expectations in tissue.

Personally, I think live tissue should be the standard test media for bullets intended for use against live tissue. The issue is the test protocols and repeatability.

Would you test armor piercing rounds against Jell-O to determine their armor penetration as well?

TR

[swatsurgeon]

A few points, for which I'd want to generate discussion;

- It is quite obvious that the terminal ballistics of a new bullet or a bullet already in use need to be tested by the various manufacturers, organisations etc.

- As I wrote earlier, is it safe to say that those bullets that perform well in gelatin testing are usually also quite effective in actual shootings?

- If gelatin is not the best test material, what is the replacement? Bearing in mind it it most likely should be something readily available, uniform to conduct comparison testing, easy to conduct the testing with etc?

Tuukka,
it is unfortunate that companies that want to bring a particular bullet to market have to abide by certain market factors, i.e., following the FBI ballistic laboratory testing protocols, etc. The use of gel, as previously mentioned, gives all of the companies even footing with regards to testing their propietary bullet design against a standard as well as other similiar bullets under similiar circumstances...they all use 10% ballistic gel, certain temp/density, etc. What then happens is a marketing team hypes the design and gel results and tries to make the buyer believe that their product is the best at: one stop shots, perfect penetration, reliable expansion,a nd the list goes on and on. What they don't AND CAN'T tell you is the wound ballistics in human(or other....thanks PETA) tissues so that real life shootings can educate the rest of law enforcement. There have been a few articles that attempted to do this....they are noton the Most Read list for agencies that I work/worked with.
The performance is gel is all that the marketing people should be writing about, not the "potential" in human or animal tissue. I have many, many trauma cases of all caliber modern bullets that performed close to , not even close to or didn't perform anything like gel said they would. I have posted pictures here and other places, have lectured nationally with the bullets in my hand and xrays, pictures of the patients and can assure you that predicted (marketed) performance has statistically been incorrect. That is not to say that some bullets that are stated/tested in gel to penetrate 11 inches do penetrate 11 inches...just not reliably, so overpenetration is a major concern. Plenty of bullets do not expand fully, therefore a "failure", ....you see my point.
I feel that there is a great injustice being done to law enforcement...they don't have all appropriate information (wound ballistics) to make an informed decision of what to carry in their duty weapons. If they would carry ball ammo in .380 or 9mm and hit their intended target area perfectly every time, this discussion would not be happening right now. Shot placement is everything in a gun fight where faster incapacitation means the other guy may not get a shot off at the officer.
People need to feel important and flex their academic muscles or just become experts, for what reason I'm not sure since there is no one that I am aware of that truly rises to the level of expert in this field. There are plenty of us with real world experience that is down played or negated because we don't 'fit the mold' no pun intended.........by speaking about what bullets do inside of bodies that has poor scientific corrolation to gel testing. As prevoiusly mentioned, Finland is the only country I am aware of that does use clinical, simulated and simulant data to give law enforcement facts that are worth something.....
Not every test medium will work with every bullet design...i.e., the LeMas issue, but there are others.
I hope this has answered your questions...no rhetoric, no gum flapping, no expert opinion, just a professional's observation of the end product of whast bullet companies wish they could tell you but can't. The human body has yet to be replicated, gel was decided as the ballistic medium by shooting a small number of swine, I will find the article again...it is available on the net,I believe it was by Dr. Fackler as 1st author. By the way, I have had exactly one patient in my entire career that had the perfect thigh/gel corrolation shot and it over penetrated when gel said it shouldn't have...I do have pictures of all of these examples. If you read some of the posts by odd job, we discussed the use of CT scan imaging to measure exact depths of penetration....it really is a joke that it is a major marketing tool since it is incorrect so often.
Anyway, enjoy your journey into the art and little science of wound ballistics as some will have you believe (don't drink the kool-aid!!) that it is alot of science based on gel.

ss

[swatsurgeon]

Found it......

The foundation for using the Gel model as an approximate or equivalent substitute for animal tissue
3 blocks of gel
5 swine
For each of the 2 bullets tested

now that is science wouldn't you say?

Here is an article that was talked about for awhile but again, changing data points or excluding some changes the statistics: from Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Assoc
Wolberg, EJ. Wound Ballistics Review, Winter 1991;10-13
Autopsy study by M.E., torso shots with retained bullet: not included if bone hit or over penetration
Early vs delayed deaths unknown/not statedCompared to gelatin data
27 officer involved shootings reviewed, penetration depth for 147gr Win JHP
Gel = 12-14 inches
Autopsy = 10-17 inches

so again ask yourself, where is the valid data, not data that leaves out critical information.......not very 'scientific' in my opinion.

ss

[Smokin Joe]

Live tissue is not homogenous.

Organs, fat, muscle, bone, etc. each have different characteristics and elasticity.

Ballistic gelatin is fine as a generic single density test medium for most ammunition. In some cases, the terminal ballistic performance is similar to its performance in live tissue. In others, it does not appear to be. I wonder how many rounds might have been effective in live tissue, but were rejected because of their performance in gelatin. Conversely, I wonder if rounds have been selected because of their superior performance in gelatin, but did not perform to expectations in tissue.

Personally, I think live tissue should be the standard test media for bullets intended for use against live tissue. The issue is the test protocols and repeatability.

Would you test armor piercing rounds against Jell-O to determine their armor penetration as well?

TR

Interesting you point this out TR. My old agency for the longest time carried one round because of its Gel performance. But a few of us knew of a round that worked better on people (the Win SXT +P+), we finally got the switch, and in three very similar shootings the new round out performed the old. Even though the gel data did not support it.

This made me a Gel non-believer for life.

I can understand the want from the scientific community to have a medium that can replicate tissue for evaluation purposes. But in light of gels in ability to replicate a bullets performance why has the scientific community been so resistant to changing the medium? Are the politics that bad or do the special interests have that much influence? I would think that for the betterment of the scientific community its members as a whole would be pushing for a more accurate medium.

It further seems like their are two debates present that that should be addressed separately. 1) The validity of testing in Gel vs Live Tissue, and 2) LeMas performance in Live Tissue.

If the bullet hits that hard and does that much damage great, lets pass it around! If not lets all move on to the next wonder bullet.

Just my .02 cents (from a knuckle dragger's POV)

[greenberetTFS]

Not sure of your training/experience/practice, but I would suggest a visit to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Satistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorde rs#Cautions.

The DSM, a continuing work in progress, clearly cautions that, "its use by people without clinical training can lead to inappropiate application of its contents. Appropiate use of the diagnostic criteria is said to require extensive clinical training, and its contents [cannot be simply applied in a cookbook fashion]. The APA, (American Psychiatric Association), notes diagnostic labels are primarily for use as a [conventional shorthand] among professionals. The DSM advises that laypersons should consult the DSM only to obtain information, not to make a diagnosis, and people who may have a mental disorder should be referred to psychological counseling and treatment".

If you have trouble connecting to Wikipedia on this topic, it could be that I got a character wrong. The bottom line is that, without being a credentialed, trained, and well practiced provider of mental health care, the DSM suggests, strongly, and cautions the layperson...regarding any attempt "to make a diagnosis".:lifter:lifter

My $.02.

RF 1.

I don't now a lot about this situation,but RF 1's response looked good enough for me.................;)

Big Teddy :munchin

[BrainStorm]

Live tissue is not homogenous.

Organs, fat, muscle, bone, etc. each have different characteristics and elasticity.


In engineering realms where I have some experience, I am familiar with standardized tests to simulate the results of dynamic and/or non-homogeneous environments that have received industry acceptance. I find it curious that ballistics science has not yet developed standardized testing outside of a homogeneous medium designed for testing only a limited regime.

Also curious is that the test regime cannot explain results observed by professionals from GSW produced by bullets of non-traditional design. Yet, the defenders of ballistic gel seem unwilling to explain the "anomalous" results or to be open minded about its limitations.

[Irishsquid]

I pretty much figured if the government mandates a medium for testing, it's probably AFU. Much like the "backface deformation," testing of body armor. If it makes too big of a "dent," in modeling clay, it doesn't get a certain rating. Makes perfect sense to me!! That said, gel is still the best medium I have, unfortunately. Apparently, people will get pissy if you start shooting living things to test ammo. Personally, I say there are a lot of stray dogs/coyotes in my area that are appropriate for ammo testing...

[rdret1]

Or you can always get these guys to do the tests for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcqqQp-Z-zk&has_verified=1&ytsession=sjGILT1Kj44fghv6roIudYcPZuLwvKcKd7KS4UFm StvFKrwehnnhgm50U4ZhnVeXEFKlPCoRHkm--irUh0IZ538zq2oxjFgVIsMvNcGSTiAz4AFJr86i0Iyyx8qd8jJ cQ9P-Q0uj6myUTtNGwLHDUzGyib-GTuTU6bPT1CLzvP9qhB_p_KfvzeRcTfPfgnB5q-DQtRTVxrN2JN8kkCRNg43OZVG47YXa6qaIByH4RdmH-qiXIoiE0XwoOK9phUssxrdSXAXUBGbmBWOHkNJHjXVqRyBDg2L h3hakje6Taicj1fGT6tqtIPk_KwmfZr88

[Ken Brock]

Conversely, I wonder if rounds have been selected because of their superior performance in gelatin, but did not perform to expectations in tissue.



TR


This has happened for sure

back in the mid 90's our agency switched to the 9mm 147 grain Black Talon because of how it performed in gel

not longer after the switch we had several shootings and not a single round expanded in the suspect

all of the rounds passed through with no expansion and exited the suspect

[Smokin Joe]

This has happened for sure

back in the mid 90's our agency switched to the 9mm 147 grain Black Talon because of how it performed in gel

not longer after the switch we had several shootings and not a single round expanded in the suspect

all of the rounds passed through with no expansion and exited the suspect

That freaking sucks! :(

[swatsurgeon]

This has happened for sure

back in the mid 90's our agency switched to the 9mm 147 grain Black Talon because of how it performed in gel

not longer after the switch we had several shootings and not a single round expanded in the suspect

all of the rounds passed through with no expansion and exited the suspect

Ken,
Since I began writing and speaking on this subject I have been asked for advice (whether they acted on it or not , I have no idea) by atleast 30-35 police departments, some small and some with >1500 officers.

ss

[Ambush Master]

Ken,
Since I began writing and speaking on this subject I have been asked for advice (whether they acted on it or not , I have no idea) by atleast 30-35 police departments, some small and some with >1500 officers.

ss

FWIW, I carry what SS says works!! If I have to use it, I will give an AAR!!:munchin

[Sigaba]

Sigaba, that's why I said, " ...to clarify my position with a smile...".

When in therapist mode, I usually preface it with "clinically speaking" or "IMPO".
Pardon the misunderstanding. Easy to switch modes in person without misdirecting people but difficult to do when writing.

I was curious, what is your background on this subject? I was looking at your profile and beyond a mention of object relations theory (which is fascinating), I didn't see anything directly related to the mental health field.Mabuse--

I had the opportunity to do coursework with the late Mauricio Mazón, a history professor who also had a doctorate in clinical psychoanalysis. He was a training analyst for an institute located in Southern California. He was not a big fan of psycho-history so his students got to read lots of clinical theory.

He took both his professions seriously. If folks defined terms incorrectly or stray out of their lanes in discussing matters of history and historiography, he'd cut them down with a wry smile and a playful but well-aimed barb. But he stood his ground. (His one monograph earned him PNG status in two academic disciplines.)

When the topic was psychology he was equally uncompromising. (I got one heck of a thrashing for my comments on Melanie Klein. It was worth it.) In seminar, he offered less than favorable assessments of his peers and emphasized the sacred nature of the therapeutic alliance. He held the opinion that too many psychologists were poorly trained and more interested in making money than in helping their patients live better lives in their own terms.

He believed psychoanalysis was the best field of the lot because its practitioners themselves had been analyzed in clinical settings (IIRC, his analyst was Peter Lowenberg). This is not to say he was a snob when it came to theory. In his practice, he would use what ever worked for the patient. Instead, this is to say that he was committed to the ethics of his second profession. To him, psychology was not a parlor trick.

A bit later, I did more coursework with a educational cognitive psychologist. In this case, the topic of study centered around "expertise" and "expert performance." This person was also leery of many of his peers. Time and again he stressed that the mission of psychology was to help others achieve a sense of self-efficacy and that this was self defined. Once I pushed him on this view--hard--by asking him how he'd work with people who had goals that were, in his view, self destructive and antithetical to his own personal values. He held his ground without hesitation. His professional mission was to serve the self-defined interests of his patients, not his own personal preferences.And I'm not a layperson.Then why do act like one by offering on the fly 'text book' diagnosis of people you've never met? Why do you frequently portray people with whom you disagree or whom you dislike in pathological terms? Were you taught to do this? Did your training indicate that this type of behavior is ethical?

In the closing of his biography of James Forrestal, Arnold A. Rogow (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/world/americas/03iht-web.obits.rogow.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print) lamented that people like Forrestal might be more likely to seek help if Americans did not have so many misconceptions about psychology. There are folks who have devoted their careers to correcting these misconceptions by their work and their professionalism.

They understand that their conduct may shape how people choose to get help if they need it and how the general public may respond to that choice.

YMMV.

[dr. mabuse]

Isn't “course work” an insufficient background/experience on which to base a professional complaint of this nature, and merely invites the pitfalls and shortcomings endemic to the Ivory Tower and academic outlook? Yes.

Your studies are commendable yet you are still not a therapist, yet you feel qualified through your "course work" to professionally judge me.

Keep in mind, I was characterizing the Dentist’s posting, and not his personality. But I think you know that already.

One needn’t refer to the DSM to describe someone’s posts with that term.

But you already know that too.

Now, try to be well and leave me alone or I'll start charging a fee.

Go pick on TS or TR for awhile if you dare. ;)

Have a good un'.

[Sigaba]

Isn't “course work” an insufficient background/experience on which to base a professional complaint of this nature, and merely invites the pitfalls and shortcomings endemic to the Ivory Tower and academic outlook? Yes.

Your studies are commendable yet you are still not a therapist, yet you feel qualified through your "course work" to professionally judge me.

Keep in mind, I was characterizing the Dentist’s posting, and not his personality. But I think you know that already.

One needn’t refer to the DSM to describe someone’s posts with that term.

But you already know that too.

Now, try to be well and leave me alone or I'll start charging a fee.

Go pick on TS or TR for awhile if you dare. ;)

Have a good un'.Mabuse--

I was hoping you'd answer my questions.

[The Reaper]

Well, here we go again with the personal attacks.

Apparently, education does not always confer understanding.

Let me break this down for all of you who seem to delight in starting arguments with other people.

Stop.

Quibbling and snarkiness are not attributes we are looking for here.

Stay on topic or take it to PM.

Do not attack other posters.

The next time I have to point this out, it will not be pleasant.

That is all.

TR

[Bill Harsey]

Sigaba,
I'm just a country boy from the woods of Oregon and have a simple mind.

This thread is about how a partiular kind of projectile works and the only reason I'm reading this is to get some insight into what this bullet does when it hits living tissue and how that compares to shooting hard jello. I'm not smart enough to understand what your writing here.

Please note I'm not asking any questions of you.

[Richard]

I don't know Gary Roberts, DDS, or most of the others offering opinions in this thread - however - my experiences and opinions only - bullets seldom 'behave' as predicted once they come into contact with the human body. I have no experience with gelatin.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin