Trauma Surgeon Evaluates LeMas - Graphic
 

“The study of wound ballistics is based on a significant amount of science and a tremendous amount of art.” - Sydney Vail, M.D., F.A.C.S. The human body has yet to be replicated in a defined way that guarantees duplication of injuries for any specific bullet design. Depth of penetration, temporary cavity, degree of fragmentation and other definable bullet characteristics including reproducible wounding has not yet been 100% correlated to any simulated media. The human body is far too complex to be able to generate a ballistic model that will consistently reveal the wounding ability of any type of bullet. I have cared for patients in and out of the operating room that have been shot with 7.62 x 39, 30-06, 5.56, shotguns, and pistol calibers from .22 to .45 ACP. I have retrieved Hydrashoks®, Gold Dots®, Talons®, Golden Sabers®, Cor-bon® to ball ammo and continue to be impressed with the uncertainty of reliable expansion, injury and ballistic profiles. I can tell you from a practical standpoint that anything determined to be reliable in ballistic gelatin has the potential to be unreliable in the human body, i.e., intended tissue destruction, bullet expansion/function. There are too many factors that go into wound ballistics in living tissue that CAN NOT BE REPLICATED IN ANY KNOWN SIMULANT MEDIUM. The “Miami Shootout” on April 11, 1986 gave way to the current FBI ballistic gelatin 12-18 inch testing protocols which still dictate and limit today the accepted standard for the design, testing, and utilization for all current law enforcement and military bullet designs. Fackler, in 1987 wrote a paper “What’s Wrong With the Wound Ballistics Literature, and Why. In it he states: “The wound produced by a particular penetrating projectile is characterized by the amount and location of tissue crush and stretch. In our laboratory, we measure the amount and location of crush (permanent cavity) and stretch (temporary cavity) on the basis of shots fired into gelatin tissue simulant. Since we have calibrated this stimulant to reproduce the projectile characteristics equivalent to those observed in living animal tissue, measurements from these shots can be used to predict approximate animal tissue disruption.” It is true that a tissue simulation that allows for evaluation of similar types of bullets offers great value. The FBI ballistic gelatin protocol is such an evaluation tool. But if a specific type of bullet construction could not be accurately tested in ballistic gelatin for performance in living tissue should we dismiss validated performance in living tissue because a particular testing simulant did not accurately predict that performance in living tissue? In today’s scientific world, we should instead develop new ballistic test methods which accurately predict living tissue performance or accept performance in living tissue itself as a valid test medium for bullet performance. I recently attended a live fire demonstration of the Le Mas Ltd. Law Enforcement / Military armor piercing ammunition utilizing both bare and armored live tissue impact mediums. I attended voluntarily, with no contractual, financial or other agreements between myself and Le Mas Ltd. I paid all of my expenses (plane ticket, hotel, car, etc) and have received no funding or honorarium through any sources to attend this demonstration. With respect to Le Mas BMT AP law enforcement bullets, I had the opportunity to both witness and conduct living (immediately post mortem) tissue animal necropsies. Of immediate interest with respect to the Le Mas AP ammo were the dramatic tissue destructions that did not represent a wounding pattern that I have seen with any other bullet type. Fully anesthetized hog comparative thoracic cavity and then rear appendage impacts were conducted with both “conventional duty ammunition” and the Le Mas AP law enforcement/military ammunition. The study was a matched cohort, following published guidelines of live animal use, i.e., appropriate anesthetics and animal care from a research point of view. Two board certified veterinarians were on-site ensuring the appropriate treatment of these animals. The wounds were remarkable in that both the Le Mas rifle and handgun rounds caused significantly more injury than ‘expected’, as I have seen in my practice. As an example, both the expectation for known/predictable permanent and temporary cavities with a 9mm or .45acp bullet performance depending on solid or hollow organ hits was not appreciated with the Le Mas ammunition but was with conventional JHP ammunition. The Le Mas round wounds were devastating in that it appeared that a high powered fragmenting rifle round were used when in fact it was a handgun round used to cause the injury. Large temporary cavity injuries were noted similar to wounds demonstrated with high powered rifle rounds that were not accurately predicted from conducted impacts into 10% calibrated ballistic gelatin tissue simulant. None of the 9mm, .45, or 5.56 Le Mas armor piercing bullet impacts over penetrated thoracic cavity or rear appendages of the animals while conventional duty ammunition did over penetrate the animals. The Le Mas 5.56 AP bullet thoracic cavity tissue dissection additionally showed the heart of the hog, hard to the touch in areas that appeared not directly hit by the bullet fragments. There was obvious evidence of heart muscle hemorrhagic contusion (a severe bruise) which was not demonstrated from comparative point of impact current military 5.56 rifle ammunition designs. The Le Mas thoracic cavity handgun bullet impacts showed both small and large lung bullae (surface bubbles) that are usually only seen with a blast injury or high velocity rifle bullet fragmentations. The armor piercing, Limited Penetration 5.56 rounds performed as designed in both armor and tissue. They penetrated the 3/8th inch HAA armor yet still had expected effects in non armored live target tissues (Figures 1-9). It was surprising to me to see the wounding effects the rounds maintained after passing through armor plating. The effects were similar same for handgun or rifle rounds; this keeps our military with comparable lethality if the transition to the sidearm is necessary. The overall safety of no pass through during CQB operations should keep our troops safer during these challenging missions. PLEASE REFER TO REFERENCED PICTURES LISTED AS “FIGURE #” Figures 1 & 2. LeMas SRAP 5.56. Significant tissue injury: heart, lungs, chest wall. No over penetration. Figure 3. LeMas SRAP 5.56. Multiple wound channels, same animal. Figure 4. Same animal showing significant heart injury with extensive hemorrhagic contusion and missing tissue. Figure 5. M-262 5.56 77 grain OTM ammunition. Definable permanent cavity with minimal injury away from the bullet’s track. No heart injury with wound channel just behind the heart. (+) over penetration with pass through of bullet.

Trauma Surgeon Evaluates LeMas - Graphic
 

Figure 6 (Below). M-855 5.56 ammunition. Significant injury to heart, minimal injury to lungs. (+) over penetration of chest cavity with complete pass through of bullet. Figures 7 & 8. LeMas APLP 9mm from handgun. Significant injury to heart and lungs; characteristic of high velocity rifle round. No over penetration. Figure 9. LeMas 9mm handgun. Same animal showing high degree of chest organ injury. A great misconception is that ballistic gelatin relates bullet performance in the human body such that all gelatin results correlate about 100% with performance of any bullet in the body. Yet in fact only tissue media can correlate to tissue, i.e., animal or human bullet impacts, so that a valid ballistic ‘profile’ can be established. The medical literature is replete with articles using live tissue or cadavers for ballistic profiling. The theory that 10% ballistic gelatin is highly correlated to muscle density has been shown but I haven’t yet seen a person with muscle hanging out without some amount of skin and subcutaneous tissue and fat on top of it. Different muscles also have different densities and thickness of fascias (muscle coverings) as well as having tendons running inside of or along side of muscles and having a skeletal structural support; gelatin has none of these. The human body is heterogeneous; ballistic gelatin is homogeneous, completely the same through and through. The Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies at the Pennsylvania State University Applied Research Laboratory commented on the “difficulty extrapolating the data for tissue simulants to use for living human beings” in their report: Ballistic Gelatin, February 2004. Commenting on Fackler’s gelatin vs. animal research, “original data is limited, and he [Fackler] sometimes references ‘unpublished data’ to support his argument.” Gary K. Roberts, DDS, LCDR, USNR has commented on Le Mas Ltd./RBCD ammunition in a report dated March 11, 2002 titled: Preliminary Assessment of the Terminal Wounding Effects of Selected RBCD Ammunition. In this memo testing was performed in “calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin, a tissue simulant with a well proven correlation with human tissue.” Figure 10. I disagree with Dr. Robert’s assessment of ballistic gelatin “wounding effects” in that the correlation to human tissue is incorrect. Human tissue is not homogeneous, period. The purpose of gelatin is to examine similar bullet type’s ex-vivo (not in live tissue). For example I have observed hundreds of gunshot wounds in-vivo (live tissue) and have seen jacketed hollow point bullets not expand that reliably expand in gelatin, bullets often separate from their jackets in living tissue when they don’t in gelatin; these occurrences simply demonstrate that ballistic gelatin is not a 100% accurate predictive impact medium substitute for living tissue. The Le Mas AP 9mm round fragmented/shattered in living tissue as was advertised despite the fact that in calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin as reported by Dr. Gary Roberts, the same bullet core did not expand or fragment. Living tissue necropsy showed that the Le Mas 9mm AP bullet fragments into innumerable pieces, each causing a separate wound channel. As was demonstrated with the rifle ammunition during wound explorations, the Le Mas handgun ammunition also demonstrated devastating temporary cavity effects on adjacent tissue with greater permanent cavity(s) tissue destruction, higher potential for hemorrhage and a quicker end to the brain’s ability to maintain coordinated function, i.e., the ability to hurt you. Dr. Roberts additionally stated in his report that the tissue wounding effects of the Le Mas Ltd. 9mm AP ammunition created less destruction than conventional jacket hollow point ammunition. Based on the observed performance in living tissue, I have to ask why such a negative critique was given to this bullet technology. Was the evaluator (GKR) pre-biased therefore limiting fair evaluations? As a practicing Trauma Surgeon I am left with only one answer, Dr. Roberts is protecting a biased opinion that is open to scrutiny by the medical and scientific world. His allegations toward Le Mas ammunition are unfounded, non-scientific and refutable. The real world evaluation that I witnessed refute all allegations he has made as to the non-performance of this incredible ammunition. As a concerned surgical scientist, tactical EMS physician and American, I want the best equipment in the hands of our military and law enforcement personnel. If that equipment is not of the ‘usual and customary’ type than it is up to progressive individuals to promote it’s appropriate testing and hopeful use in the future. From a trauma surgical standpoint, I expect to see nice round holes through living tissue from any of the currently available law enforcement JHP ammunition bullets. The Le Mas ammunition creates a completely different wounding pattern that increases the potential incapacitation with respect to either thoracic cavity or appendage impacts.

Trauma Surgeon Evaluates LeMas - Graphic
 

Unlike conventional JHP ammunition, the Le Mas AP bullet designs greatly increase probability for incapacitation from a shoulder or extremity due to the greatly increased internal tissue damage that would render the limb useless in terms of continue normal neuromuscular and/or vascular function. Figure 11. Rear leg and ham tissue destruction from LeMas 9mm SMG. Because of emergent Homeland Security threats since the events of “September 11, 2001”, law enforcement first responder duty ammunition performance should now address both the requirement to penetrate armor and effectively incapacitate threats without increasing over penetration liabilities to the public. Current FBI ballistic gelatin testing protocols based on the single event 20 year old “Miami Shootout” after action report rationales still limit today the design parameters today for military and law enforcement ammunition. The Le Mas Ltd. Law Enforcement / Military Armor Piercing Limited Penetration duty ammunition provides greater tissue injury with less over penetration liability than existing non AP duty ammunition, yet is still deemed substandard by “ballistic experts” because of its performance in ballistic gelatin; this must change. If we were all restricted by dogma, proof in ballistic gelatin rather than experimenting in new ideas, products or techniques than we are relegated to relive the past when all we had were muskets or single shot rifles and revolvers, and the art of wound ballistics were crude and inadequate. In my world of Trauma Surgery and Critical Care, if we depended on only one ‘standard’ method to evaluate a new practice we would be living in the past with many more deaths from all types of injuries than we have today. If a LEO or military person were to attempt to save my life, the lives of my family, or defend my country against acts of terrorism, I would want them armed with the equipment that would offer the greatest chance of operational success; reliable firearms, ammunition with maximum incapacitation potential and excellent training. With continued reports being published in both civilian and military publications of ‘failure to stop’ issues with presently used ammunition, many ballistic experts have pushed for new caliber weapons to address lack of lethality and incapacitation. I suggest changing ammunition; effective ammunition that performs its intended ballistic mission will place the advantage in the hands of our military and law enforcement personnel. This seems a better use of resources rather than pay for new caliber weapons with repetitive bullet designs destined to have similar problems of the past at an enormous cost. Bullets are intended to kill. With respect to Homeland Security and the current Global War on Terrorism, ‘failure to stop’ should not be an option. Sydney Vail, M.D., F.A.C.S. -Director of Trauma Surgery & Trauma Critical Care, Carilion Medical Center, Roanoke, Virginia -Operational Medical Director, Tactical Emergency Medical Support, Salem, VA, Emergency Response Team -Instructor, International School of Tactical Medicine, Palm Springs, CA

Thanks for the Good info.

FYI, the above editorial was written by me but posted by TR due to administrative functions for a word document on PS.com All content is my opinion without influence or bias from outside parties. ss

Great report! Thanks for taking the time Syd and thanks for posting it Boss.

Syd, Great post! I know a few more "Trauma" surgeons that will be interested in these findings..... TS (Isn't Dr. Gary Roberts a dentist ???)

Nothing like giving a dentist a well deserved root canal without the benefit of anesthesia. Great report!!

Right on!

Great report Doc !!! I knew the importance of finding out what kind of weapon was used in a GSW, while in the field (civvilian side), now I'll be asking what type of ammo was involved too.

Doc (SS) - Very nicely done. It's about time somebody called the "jello junkies" on the carpet for comparing apples to oranges. Loved the "homogeneous vs. heterogeneous" part. You would have thought it should be a blinding flash of the obvious. Good luck with the publication issues. My .02 - Peregrino

SS That is some "freakin" great writting, some really good info. I learned a lot from that "report" Thanks for the word of mouth. VG

Can anyone here explain the difference between the 9mm LeMas round's performance in Pics 7 and 8 against the gelatin shot in Pic 10? If the gelatin were an accurate predictor of ballistic performance, you would expect the LeMas round to create a simple through and through wound in tissue with a small permanent crush cavity and with 18" of penetration, a tendency to overpenetrate. Yet the round clearly comes apart and shreds tissue in a large blast type fashion, creating a massive permanent wound without exiting the target. Can anyone defend the use of gelatin as a simulant for evaluation of terminal ballistics with the LeMas ammo? I wonder what other bullets perform differently in live tissue than in gelatin? Are there some ricebowl issues here? TR

Nice work, Doc.

It looks to me like there are a significant number of fragments at about 4.5" along the gelatin track. With a starting weight of 60gr and recovered weight of 40gr it appears the bullet may have left a significant fraction of its 33% weight loss there. I assume the fragments peeled off some distance before the point where they ended up. Four inches seems to be a resonable "depth" for the pig heart - if so it could explain the massive shredding observed. Are the head-on and side gelatin photos cattywampus? It looks like six is twelve, photo to photo, from the placment of the fragments. It makes sense to me that passing through materials of differeing densities, as in a body, could dramatically affect the fragmentation of a bullet. The red caption ("Despite hyperbole...") implies some dispute here. I assume there is "history" here?

there were pieces 2, 5, maybe up to 10 or 12 grain at the largest, and by x-rays that we took, there were 100's of pieces that is consistent with near complete fragmentation of the metal part of the bullet. The clear difference is as TR points out. The gel block has little fragmentation and very little/almost no evidence of a temporary cavity. The permanent cavity is the most pronounced aspect of that picture. In real tissue the temporary cavity was DRAMATIC and all 100-500 permanent cavities left a devistating wounding pattern. The bottom line is that there is NO CORRELATION from one 'artificial' medium to the live tissue with respect to this ammunition. It does not take a rocket scientist, or brain surgeon to see this....it is plainly obvious. yes, your honor, I swear to the integrity of the digital photos, they were not edited: I was there doing the dissections of the animals and the pics are exact representations of what I dissected....it's the truth and nothing but the truth...it's my reputation on the line and I'm not about to jeapordize it for any reason or any one. ss

The approximate weight of the bullet core construction material is 41.0 grains. The recovered bullet core projectile was measured at 39.5 grains. Although the jacket material was shed during the gelatin impact the bullet core construction lost approximately 1.5 grains of mass during the 18.1 inches of penetration. The Le Mas bullet also demonstrated almost no expansion as it passed through the calibrated tissue simulant as is noted in the report. Additional ballistic gelatin testing by Mr. Roberts for the same Le Mas AP 9mm bullet design after first penetrating hard 3A armor also showed the recovered bullet core material to also show little to no expansion.

And as APLP points out, the gel covered by armor had NO, let me repeat NO correlation to tissue covered by armor. The same devastating effects were observed in the live tissue after the round penetrated armor, either IIIa or 3/8ths armor plate....not seen with gel simulant. ss

An issue that some people have about the LeMas ammo seems to come from the inability to adequately explain how the round "does what it does". I know for a fact Coke and Pepsi each guard their recipe in a vault; it is a 'trade secret' that others try to replicate....and criticize. My interest is simply the terminal effects on living tissue, with or without armor over it. I have my own theories on how the bullet fragments, when and why, but that interest does not stop me from from saying good things about it.....being critical of an propietary technology is not what I'm after. I can't explain how we do 3-D reconstructions on our state of the art 64 slice CT scanner...but I use it because it helps me diagnose my patients. Same with this ammo, I may not be able to explain how the bullet works but have seen the end result and have been impressed with it. ss

Exactly my point, Doc. I cannot explain how it works. I only care that it does what they claim, consistently. I cannot tell you how a transmitted signal to a television is translated into a picture either, but I do not really care, as long as it works. Frankly, I believe that efforts to explain the technology by those who do not really know have damaged the credibility of the ammo as well. As long as it blows big holes in bad guys, no matter where it hits, the physics of how that happens is not a real concern of mine, unless I am trying to defeat it, or compete with it. TR

Direct tie-in with the "Laws of the Natural Universe" thread: "If it sounds dumb but it works - it's not dumb". I'm with TR - I don't have to know how it works, all I care about is that it does. If the testing media can't adequately explain observed "real world" results, maybe it's time to relook the testing protocols. My .02 - Peregrino

Can anyone confirm the first two paragraphs in this article? http://www.defensereview.com/modules...rticle&sid=577 It talks about how special operations forces are currently using this ammo in the field right now, just wondering if it bs. Thank you, Dave

Why would you ask us about the veracity of a thread on another website? David Crane wrote the article, why not ask him at defensereview? TR

I apologize, it will not happen again. Dave

Where do you think you are? You eat a whole lot of stupid for breakfast? Do you think we are airsofters or members of tacticalchildren.com? You think we're here at your whim and will answer any and all questions classified or unclassified? I don't want to see you post for about 6 months. If so I'll ban you. The rest of you do try to keep your heads out of your ass. Team Sergeant

Gentlemen, an additional fact of 'validation' to add to my commentary. I just spoke to a representative from Mullins Ammunition. They design and manufacture different types of ammo and posed the question: for some of your ammo, is there a difference between what you see in a block of gel vs. what you see in live tissue with the same round? Answer: "yes, a dramatic difference, there is no comparison. The gel doesn't show the degree of injury that the tissue does" To clarify, they hunt with their ammo as their 'live tissue test medium' during regular hunting season. He stated that gel "doesn't give you the full picture of what the round will do to tissue" Now, this is the first of what I believe will be more opinions on the lack of a 'high degree of corrolation' between gel and tissue...as I stated in my commentary. Gel is useful to test certain types of ammunition as to it's inherent ballistic properties....if the ammo conforms to the 'norm', which LeMas does not...it is a different technology...same shape, same caliber, but different in how it performs. I have no idea the composition of their rounds, and don't care. It works as it is stated it to, reproducibly. I don't know what composition DVDs and CDs are but they work as advertised. I don't know all of the blends of metals are in the blade of my pocket knife, but I bought it because it has the features I wanted, it works as advertised....so does LeMas....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

Request clarifiction
 

Aside from LeMas AP 9mm ammo, is there any data on the actual terminal balistics (not gelatin tests) for the non-armor piercing 60gr 9mm rounds available to civilians from RBCD? I've been researching and have yet to find information similar to that which the Doctor has provided.

And this is directly linked to their profit margin. It’s remarkable what the sheeple will believe. The majority acquire all their information from a single source, even though that source is a snake-oil salesman with a profit motive. A good number of these followers would rather be told what to think instead of how to think and this contributes to the reason of why the snake-oil salesmen flourish. Dr. Vail (and LeMas) has shaken the very foundation of an enormous industry. The sheeple being sheeple are afraid of change. The snake-oil salesmen take advantage of this deep rooted fear and reassure the sheeple all is well and nothing will change. Personally I see a deep crack in the foundation. As some become more aware and start to think logically they will come to make that leap of logic; we are evolving, from spears to swords to bow and arrow to lead bullet, to copper jacketed, to armor piercing pistol bullets with enhanced lethality. Soon we will leave the kinetic energy weapons behind, again the snake oil salesmen will appear and the argument will continue…. These snake oil salesman are on every internet “tactical” website, be it gun, ammo, weapon, knife etc and they are there for a profit. Everyone is struggling for their piece of the pie. The sad truth is some have no integrity. They will outright lie, cheat and steal for profit. The firearms industry websites with “forums” are the worst. They know no bounds save one, making money. My personal favorites are run by civilians touting themselves as “tactical masters”. They are nothing more than “self appointed” snake oil salesmen if you ask me. If you have never faced anything more dangerous than a well armed block of ballistic gelatin you should not be offering opinions concerning anything tactical let alone running a tactical website forum. The only thing more unintelligent than these snake oil salesmen are their followers. We do not discuss tactics on our forum. There is a reason for this, we are capable (and recently demonstrated) of overthrowing countries. We do not share our training, techniques, tactics or procedures with the world. Much of what we learn is classified and the very reason we don’t discuss TTP’s. The ball is in your court Dr. Roberts. I've no doubts as to why you will not respond to Dr. Vail on this public forum…….. We are not sheeple. We have no profit motive, no sponsors etc. If you prove to us that LeMas ammo is crap we will laud your triumph. So far all you have done is talk ballistic gelatin with sheeple, let’s talk tissue damage with real professionals. Oh and for the record, I’ll take the opinion of a TRAUMA surgeon over that of a DENTIST concerning live tissue injuries every time. And if I ever find myself facing an armed and angry block of ballistic gelatin I’ll be sure to consult with the sheeple on the best method of neutralizing that block of ballistic gelatin. Team Sergeant

Texian, I know nothing of the ballistic information of RBCD ammo. It is different than the LeMas...same manufacturer, different make-up (as per information forwarded to me)....so can't help you on that one. ss

On another board I frequent one of Doc Roberts followers equated Doc Roberts with Doc Holliday and did so with a straight face. As my old man used to say never argue with an idiot, as he will only drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience. Keep up the good work Dr Vail.

Roger that, Doctor. Thanks.

In the dark ages, against unarmored opponents, we used Glasser Safety Slugs, nasty little buggers - LeMas seems a huge improvement, with the AP capability. Glad I don't have to try to patch up any recipients of those bad boys. Can you say, "ouch, that hurts a little" ?

IIRC, the RBCD has similar performance in tissue, without the enhanced AP characteristics of the BMT/LeMas. The LeMas rounds are optimized within the capabilities for certain platforms and desired performance. They have SMG versions of pistol rounds and carbine versions of rifle rounds. The RBCD are designed to optimize tissue destruction. I am sure that APLP can explain it better when he is on again. HTH. TR

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?

As far as Gary Roberts' qualifications, I will acknowledge that he is a ballistics expert in ballistic gelatin testing. I will defer to a trauma surgeon to tell me how rounds perform in live tissue. If I get hit by a bullet, I think that I know who I would rather have put me back together as well. How can you, a layman, question the professional credentials of a physician who has examined thousands of gunshot wounds? Answer me this, Chuck. How many gunshot wounds has Dr. Roberts treated? How many in humans? How many necropsies or autopsies has he performed?

I am glad that you have an extensive video collection. I have seen videos as well, but prefer to do my testing for myself. My live tissue testing tracks almost exactly with that of Dr. Vail's. There is a penetrating wound channel which terminates in an almost explosive fragmentation of the projo. The examining physician when I used it stated that it looked to him like an internal blast injury rather than a gunshot wound. Have you stuck your hand into a wound made by the LeMas? I have. If I put a 6-10" blast cavity inside of a bad guy's torso, with frag radiating out to 20", his fighting days are over, immediately. If I hit an extremity, it is gone, shredded, amputatable at the next highest joint, if he doesn't bleed out first.

You are correct in that the ammo has not been adopted by the US Army. In fact, I do not believe that they have even tested it in live tissue. I suspect that a large part of that is due to misinformation by people who have never fired a round of it, or if they have, spent it shooting Jell-O.

In summary, for you and the rest of the crew who are parrotting what they have been told:

The ammo works in live tissue, and it works very well. Some of it also works as an AP round. I have fired it, and can verify that it does. I have seen enough shots from it myself, in person, to know that what Dr. Vail is saying is correct. The videos and photos Stan has posted are entirely consistent with my experience with the ammo as well.

I cannot speak for LeMas, but I am pretty sure that if someone wanted to test the ammunition yet again, in live tissue, they could arrange for your experts and ammo to be used in a head to head shoot-off in live tissue, under controlled conditions, with your witnesses present.

Professionals do not call other professionals names, threaten to beat their asses for disagreeing, or post their pictures on the internet. I think that pretty much says it all about the differences between the sites, and the posters.

Real experts will test for themselves, and make their own arguments in person, with scientifically repeatable data to support it. Not send their fan club to argue for them. Where is the rebuttal with comparable live tissue testing from Dr. Roberts, with the assistance of a competent trauma surgeon, to refute Dr. Vail's report? In fact, where is Dr. Roberts? Why is he not arguing his own points? Stan is here, as is Dr. Vail. GKR is a regular here as balpro, he was here at 0317 this morning and drops by all of the time to read. Let him quit reading and say what is on his mind, to Stan and Dr. Vail directly. Not to offend, but is it too much to ask for one scientist to argue with another one directly, rather than using lackeys who have never fired a round of the ammo in question?

What has he got to lose by speaking up for himself?

TR

Chuck, You need to go to the introductions thread HERE and introduce your self.

Thanks for the info, Sir. I believe I'll go out, buy a box, and try it for myself.

If you do not plan to shoot live targets, take two pieces of meat of roughly the same size and construction. Shoot one with your carry load and the other with the LeMas. Examine the meat when done and let us know what you found. TR