PDA

View Full Version : LeMas 5.56mm Info


APLP
12-23-2005, 23:32
Thought the below might be of interest as the M-262 5.56 ammunition was packaged as a dramatic upgrade to concerns of reduced lethality for the current M-16/M-4 weapons systems.

APLP
12-24-2005, 00:01
Thought this might be of interest as the M-855 5.56 ammunition is thought by some to be lacking in combat effectiveness. The M-855 5.56 ammunition was fired from a 12 inch 1/7 barrel.

APLP
12-25-2005, 13:46
The Le Mas Ltd. Short Range Armor Piercing 5.56 impact shown below demonstrates bullet performance when impacting a non-ballistic gelatin living tissue medium. The SRAP 5.56 impact was fired from the same 12 inch 1/7 twist AR-15as the M-262 and M-855 5.56 rounds shown previously.

APLP
12-26-2005, 11:34
M-262 77 grain 5.56 thoracic cavity impact, 5 yards, 12 inch 1/7

APLP
12-26-2005, 11:39
M-855 62 grain 5.56 thoracic cavity impact, 5 yards, 12 inch 1/7

APLP
12-26-2005, 11:44
Le Mas Short Range Armor Piercing 5.56 thoracic impact, 5 yards, 12 inch 1/7

Peregrino
12-26-2005, 12:22
APLP - Hopefully you've got a great sausage recipe because you sure are making a lot of it. Have you tried putting these through a suppressor yet? And have you done any testing in excess of 150m? TR shared the hunting video with me "a while ago" and I was wondering if you had any recent controlled tests for accuracy/terminal ballistics in the 150 to 300 meter range. My apologies to the pigs, I know it's harder to do long range testing repeatably and humanely but those are the critical engagement ranges where the current ammo has been reported to perform below expectations. You've more than proven the point to anyone who will listen about the short range performance. At this stage the only thing left to do is find a way around the ones who won't listen. Good luck with that - especially the ones who've tied their egos to the position they're defending. Here's my wishes to you for a Happy (and prosperous) New Year getting quantities of your product in the hands of the right people where it will do the most good. (Side Note: TR and I spent some time last week on Ft Bragg. Part of it was spent listening to an 18D complain about having to treat indig's w/gunshot wounds 2-3 days after a firefight - something he probably would not have had to do if the good guys had been shooting your stuff. Not that he was complaining about the practice, just that it was taking time away from treating the women and children he wanted to help - the ones that would really affect the future "hearts and minds" - and that wouldn't be waiting to ambush another good guy as soon as they were healed up.) Peregrino

APLP
12-26-2005, 13:26
APLP - Hopefully you've got a great sausage recipe because you sure are making a lot of it. Have you tried putting these through a suppressor yet? And have you done any testing in excess of 150m? TR shared the hunting video with me "a while ago" and I was wondering if you had any recent controlled tests for accuracy/terminal ballistics in the 150 to 300 meter range. My apologies to the pigs, I know it's harder to do long range testing repeatably and humanely but those are the critical engagement ranges where the current ammo has been reported to perform below expectations. You've more than proven the point to anyone who will listen about the short range performance. At this stage the only thing left to do is find a way around the ones who won't listen. Good luck with that - especially the ones who've tied their egos to the position they're defending. Here's my wishes to you for a Happy (and prosperous) New Year getting quantities of your product in the hands of the right people where it will do the most good. (Side Note: TR and I spent some time last week on Ft Bragg. Part of it was spent listening to an 18D complain about having to treat indig's w/gunshot wounds 2-3 days after a firefight - something he probably would not have had to do if the good guys had been shooting your stuff. Not that he was complaining about the practice, just that it was taking time away from treating the women and children he wanted to help - the ones that would really affect the future "hearts and minds" - and that wouldn't be waiting to ambush another good guy as soon as they were healed up.) Peregrino

Peregrino,

Thanks for your encouragement. Although we have not had any of the congressional RDT&E funding made available to conduct dedicated testing for the SRAP ammunition, from what we have been able to facilitate so far the ammunition works well through suppressors.

The light weight high speed rounds provide the greatest increase in mission capability for the short barreled weapon systems. Although the SRAP rounds provide hard armor and reduced tissue over penetration within CQB and close urban warfare environments, the observed non armored tissue fragmentation energy requirements are much less than M-855 or M-262 ammunition. Without a direct comparison hogs to humans testing evaluation, we would expect the Le Mas AP rounds to provide effective non armored tissue bullet fragmentation as shown below.

10.5" 1/7 at 200 yards
12.0" 1/7 at 275 yards
14.5" 1/7 at 300 yards
16.0" 1/8 at 350 yards
18.0" 1/9 at 400 yards
20.0" 1/9 at 425 yards

APLP
12-28-2005, 23:13
Although the M-855 and M-262 bullet designs are capable of penetrating 3A body armor, the resulting 0 mission probability when impacting soft armored tissue is further reduced. The Le Mas Ltd. hard armor armor piericng 5.56 ammunitiion performance in living tissue after penetrating soft body armor is shown below.

Gene Econ
01-07-2006, 18:17
At this stage the only thing left to do is find a way around the ones who won't listen. Good luck with that - especially the ones who've tied their egos to the position they're defending. Peregrino

Peregrino:

Whose ego is tied up in the issued 5.56 Ball? Can't see anyone really caring if the Army goes to another type of 5.56 bullet. If they do go to another type of bullet, I hope them make one that shoots better than the M-855. That stuff is some lousy ammo in terms of accuracy.

Gene

The Reaper
01-07-2006, 18:28
Peregrino:

Whose ego is tied up in the issued 5.56 Ball? Can't see anyone really caring if the Army goes to another type of 5.56 bullet. If they do go to another type of bullet, I hope them make one that shoots better than the M-855. That stuff is some lousy ammo in terms of accuracy.

Gene

Pardon me for sticking my nose in, but I would say anyone who advocated the acceptance of M855 Ball.

That would pretty much include the Ordnance Corps, Picatinny, and all of the other R&D elements, those who decided that we should make the M-249 round standard for the M-16, those who valued penetration over lethality, etc. Don't forget Olin, Federal, or whoever is running the Army's 5.56mm ammo production right now. Finally, add those who have built their professional reputations on ballistic gelatin as THE gold standard for terminal ballistics.

In most regards, the old M193 round is superior to the M855, Unfortunately, we went to the 1:7" twist to stabilize the long burn 5.56 Tracer M856 round, and thereby rendered the M193 less effective in the new barrels.

Just my .02.

TR

Gene Econ
01-09-2006, 20:32
Pardon me for sticking my nose in, but I would say anyone who advocated the acceptance of M855 Ball.TR

TR and ALPS:

Is there an approved requirements document for the type of ammo that LeMas is producing?

Gene

APLP
01-10-2006, 23:58
TR and ALPS:

Is there an approved requirements document for the type of ammo that LeMas is producing?

Gene

Hey Gene,

Sorry for the late response. To my knowledge there are no written requirements for the specific operational capabilities of the Le Mas ammunition. As you know if there are no written requirements, there can be no procurement. In current times it seems to me that often the procurement structures drive the requirements for small arms weapon systems and ammunition, not always the needs of the end user.

The US Military use the same FBI ballistic gelatin performance protocols that have driven all current design, testing, and procurement guidelines for current DoD small arms ammunitions. Demonstrated performance in living tissue whether a primary design capability or not which does not correlate to ballistic gelatin will not compute. Funny that the Miami shootout has had such an effect with currently procured US military small arms ammunition. Some folks go to incredible efforts to justify that the current duty ammunitions do not demonstrate excessive lethality when fired from small arms weapon systems. Some would say such issues are of a political nature, not a legal rule of law question.

Gene Econ
01-11-2006, 07:46
To my knowledge there are no written requirements for the specific operational capabilities of the Le Mas ammunition. As you know if there are no written requirements, there can be no procurement. In current times it seems to me that often the procurement structures drive the requirements for small arms weapon systems and ammunition, not always the needs of the end user. The US Military use the same FBI ballistic gelatin performance protocols that have driven all current design, testing, and procurement guidelines for current DoD small arms ammunitions. Demonstrated performance in living tissue whether a primary design capability or not which does not correlate to ballistic gelatin will not compute. Funny that the Miami shootout has had such an effect with currently procured US military small arms ammunition. Some folks go to incredible efforts to justify that the current duty ammunitions do not demonstrate excessive lethality when fired from small arms weapon systems. Some would say such issues are of a political nature, not a legal rule of law question.

APLP:

You are going to have a hard go of it with no requirements coming from a proponent. I have a little bit of a different view of the RDTE and procurement system. My experience has been that the system is totally driven by a requirement. My experience has also been that even off the shelf technology takes a long time to acquire.

The Test and Evaluation system dislikes being forced to test and evaluate something that hasn't been blessed as a requirement. It costs a huge sum to test any sort of munition and someone has to pay for these tests. I understand your conflict with ballistic gelatin. I have no opinion on it either way myself. I am wondering if DoD is prohibited by law from live tissue tests.

As for M-855. That stuff was designed in the late 70s to meet a requirement for penetration and some increased range over the M-193. The requirement was based on the Soviet threat and the doctrine then was to avoid at all costs close combat. Simply put, we wanted the bullet to penetrate as much hard material as it could and if it put a hole in someone (inflicted a wound) that was good enough. Those who wrote the requirements for the 855 and those who designed it are probably retired by now. That was twenty five plus years ago. For better or worse, the M-855 met the requirements that drove its design.

From working in the RDTE system and with Ballistics Research Lab from time to time -- many years ago -- I will also comment that the military (DoD) could care less about civilian LEA requirements or circumstances surrounding LEA shoot outs. They do care about range, accuracy, penetration, lethality, and cost -- based on their requirements and not necessarily in that order. That is once the requirement has been blessed and is funded. Congress approves the funding so politics is part of the equation no matter how much it may upset some.

I would think that USSOCOM would be a proponent if they thought it was needed.

Just my thoughts. As you know, I wish you the best in your efforts.

Gene

APLP
01-11-2006, 12:48
APLP:

You are going to have a hard go of it with no requirements coming from a proponent. I have a little bit of a different view of the RDTE and procurement system. My experience has been that the system is totally driven by a requirement. My experience has also been that even off the shelf technology takes a long time to acquire.

The Test and Evaluation system dislikes being forced to test and evaluate something that hasn't been blessed as a requirement. It costs a huge sum to test any sort of munition and someone has to pay for these tests. I understand your conflict with ballistic gelatin. I have no opinion on it either way myself. I am wondering if DoD is prohibited by law from live tissue tests.

As for M-855. That stuff was designed in the late 70s to meet a requirement for penetration and some increased range over the M-193. The requirement was based on the Soviet threat and the doctrine then was to avoid at all costs close combat. Simply put, we wanted the bullet to penetrate as much hard material as it could and if it put a hole in someone (inflicted a wound) that was good enough. Those who wrote the requirements for the 855 and those who designed it are probably retired by now. That was twenty five plus years ago. For better or worse, the M-855 met the requirements that drove its design.

From working in the RDTE system and with Ballistics Research Lab from time to time -- many years ago -- I will also comment that the military (DoD) could care less about civilian LEA requirements or circumstances surrounding LEA shoot outs. They do care about range, accuracy, penetration, lethality, and cost -- based on their requirements and not necessarily in that order. That is once the requirement has been blessed and is funded. Congress approves the funding so politics is part of the equation no matter how much it may upset some.

I would think that USSOCOM would be a proponent if they thought it was needed.

Just my thoughts. As you know, I wish you the best in your efforts.

Gene

Thanks for your comments Gene,

Non ballistic gelatin testing is very restricted but can be accomplished for any government organization. The current DoD TIPT structures which consist of many elements to include government procurement entities are about to concluded and road show a very comprehensive small arms ammunition study. The study only used ballistic gelatin as a predictive indicator for living tissue performance and only mild steel barriers were used to discriminate hard barrier penetration capability. The report will not acknowledge that the Le Mas ammunition provides valid increase for operational capability over the currently procured ammunitions. The data will also probably embrace new cartridge designs which basically push heavier slower bullets and so the never ending circle back towards the 30.06 type of rationales will prevail. The M-262 will also probably be championed as a solution to any perceived lack of lethality in the current 5.56 weapon inventories.

In the last 5 years I have had a fair amount of hands on interface with both tier 1 and 2 end users. The feedback has never been anything but outstanding, however efforts to push new requirements forward from the bottom up was always shut down on the second or third deck. You would truly not believe how many folks have been hands on, and yet cannot move the ball forward.

I now believe it to be a fact that the Le Mas ammunition must now be pushed abroad before they can be brought back for our folks to use. Something to do with how mandated lateral transfers of technology back to the US can be accommodated, but top down, or bottom up won't fit the current US procurement protocols any other way.