Trauma Surgeon Evaluates LeMas - Graphic

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by swatsurgeon

...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

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by 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

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?

[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.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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.