Quote:
|
Originally Posted by APLP
To my knowledge there are no written requirements for the specific operational capabilities of the Le Mas ammunition. As you know if there are no written requirements, there can be no procurement. In current times it seems to me that often the procurement structures drive the requirements for small arms weapon systems and ammunition, not always the needs of the end user. The US Military use the same FBI ballistic gelatin performance protocols that have driven all current design, testing, and procurement guidelines for current DoD small arms ammunitions. Demonstrated performance in living tissue whether a primary design capability or not which does not correlate to ballistic gelatin will not compute. Funny that the Miami shootout has had such an effect with currently procured US military small arms ammunition. Some folks go to incredible efforts to justify that the current duty ammunitions do not demonstrate excessive lethality when fired from small arms weapon systems. Some would say such issues are of a political nature, not a legal rule of law question.
|
APLP:
You are going to have a hard go of it with no requirements coming from a proponent. I have a little bit of a different view of the RDTE and procurement system. My experience has been that the system is totally driven by a requirement. My experience has also been that even off the shelf technology takes a long time to acquire.
The Test and Evaluation system dislikes being forced to test and evaluate something that hasn't been blessed as a requirement. It costs a huge sum to test any sort of munition and someone has to pay for these tests. I understand your conflict with ballistic gelatin. I have no opinion on it either way myself. I am wondering if DoD is prohibited by law from live tissue tests.
As for M-855. That stuff was designed in the late 70s to meet a requirement for penetration and some increased range over the M-193. The requirement was based on the Soviet threat and the doctrine then was to avoid at all costs close combat. Simply put, we wanted the bullet to penetrate as much hard material as it could and if it put a hole in someone (inflicted a wound) that was good enough. Those who wrote the requirements for the 855 and those who designed it are probably retired by now. That was twenty five plus years ago. For better or worse, the M-855 met the requirements that drove its design.
From working in the RDTE system and with Ballistics Research Lab from time to time -- many years ago -- I will also comment that the military (DoD) could care less about civilian LEA requirements or circumstances surrounding LEA shoot outs. They do care about range, accuracy, penetration, lethality, and cost -- based on their requirements and not necessarily in that order. That is once the requirement has been blessed and is funded. Congress approves the funding so politics is part of the equation no matter how much it may upset some.
I would think that USSOCOM would be a proponent if they thought it was needed.
Just my thoughts. As you know, I wish you the best in your efforts.
Gene