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

You know where to email me for further discussion.

TS

Chuck[/QUOTE]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Chuck

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

TS

Team Sergeant: Roger!

Stan:

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

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

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

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

Chuck

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

Hey Chuck,

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

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

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

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

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

Am I Missing Something Here?
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ NDD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You guys are confusing the hell out of me.

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

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

Crip

Odd Job,

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

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

"does that dog hunt?"

@ APLP

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

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

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

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

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

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g1...lNoMarkers.jpg

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

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g1...SPaperclip.jpg

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

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g1.../PSXMarked.jpg

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

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g1...XWaypoints.jpg

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

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g1...Trajectory.jpg

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

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

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

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

Edited to add link, http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a...1/m/4161099242

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source
 

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

Defense Review Le Mas Article
 

Try to find the "internet" Article but I found this one. Some good Info and reading.

It's DefenseReview's opinion that...

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


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


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


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


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

Sorry my bad, hope these work.

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a...1/m/4161099242

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

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bi...;f=78;t=001201

Jun 7, 2006 6:16 pm US/Mountain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APLP:

No offense please. Two issues with this.

1. CBS News.

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

a. Arabs have no clue about marksmanship.

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

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

Gene

Hey Gene,

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

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

APLP:

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

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

Gene

Yep.

@ APLP

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

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

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

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

CBS News is on a "Makeover" due to their Pass reporting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swatsurgeon, great post!

Most excellent post Syd. Thank you.

@ Swatsurgeon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

another source LA County Hospital;

year 2000;

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


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

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

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

TS

@ TS

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Team Sergeant

@ TS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Odd Job ,

I’m delighted I have your full attention.

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

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

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

BTW, your response, calculated, linear.

TS

@ x_sf_med

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The amount of patience and professionalism displayed is truly humbling.

Keep up the good work. :munchin

@ TS


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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