[swatsurgeon]

Chuck,
I both appreciate and respect your opinion and participation in this discussion.. This is how we all can benefit by the wisdom of many...

You clearly have a backround that no one challanges or minimizes, no one here will call you a quack or fake unless you speak from the 3rd person; I would only request the same respect.

The Reaper's post to your initial one actually contained many of the points I wanted to make.

1) Gel has a place in both the scientific and real (military and LEO) world, that I do not argue.

2) Gel does not represent the full wounding capability of any round, sorry but this is a scientific truth. It gives the observer the ability to see the basic characteristics of a bullet's performance: permanent and if present, temporary cavity, a depth of penetration, etc.....that have NO defined correlation to the human body unless the bullet was shot into a human thigh that was devoid of skin and subcutaneous fat, fascia and bone...this is a simple truth that Dr. Fackler and Roberts must agree with; It is implied in Dr. FacKlers research and development papers on ballistic gel. The reference in my commentary from the lab at Penn State with the PhD engineers also stated the disparity from gel to tissue....they are alot more educated in these matters than you or I...this is their life's work (scientists...go figure)

3) Tissue testing is the final word on any ballistic technology. I recently had a patient shot with 2 .40 cal Gold Dots (by the police) to the chest. Both went into the chest cavity, through the lung and I retrieved both of them from the soft tissue under his arm. One was completely expanded (as predicted in gel, with a penetration of only 8 inches. The other was only 1/2 expanded, based on recovered diameter and traveled 6 inches, having struck a rib first. The patient was not only very much alive but only needed a chest tube for36 hours and then was released to the police. The Lt. that I spoke with about the condition of the patient thought I was putting him on when I said the patient would likely be discharged in just a few days...he expected a dead patient; his experience and training with the .40 cal Gold Dots was that this bad guy should be dead from 2 center of mass hits.
The fact that the people that make decisions about which ammo to field test and possibly use based on ballistic gel results, such as those produced by Dr. Roberts have kept the LeMas rounds from ever getting to a 'fair' trial. I absolutely agree with you...if we could autopsy a person shot with the ammo, we could see the 'real world' results. Unfortunately, the representation by Dr. Robert's lab, and likely the opinion of others, has made that possibility not happen. It needs to be tested in tissue, not gel to examine it's potential effects, its reproducible effects. The Gold Dots I mentioned had a 50% failure rate (interms of gel predicted behavior) as well as an alive patient. The same round in LeMas, if my predictions are true, would be a patient that would not have made it to the hospital alive due to either massive hemorrhage or inability to ventilate from massive lung tissue injury.
This is only one example of hundreds that I have that bullet performance in the human body was not validated by gel testing of that particular round.

Forget the name of the bullet, forget the BS/advertising/word of mouth that you have heard....if I offered you a new ammunition that promised to be reliable in your weapon, performed 100% of the time, provided maximum wounding in the human body that likely would end your battle/gun fight due to the terminal ballistics...would you be excited to use that ammo in the defense of your country or your home.
Believe it, it works and you can't have it because of the bad press it got from gel tests and word of mouth....I want this ammo in your hands to defend your family...it won't over penetrate the bad guy to harm your family member in the next room.

Do I have a passion about this, you're damn right I do because our guys in the sandbox and LEOs here using less than lethal rounds out of guns that should do the trick...it's the ammo that's wrong. Do I have a desire to see the truth said about everything ballistic...yeah, I do because too many major decisions are made on the basis of performance in gel...it is only a piece of the puzzle, not the entire story. Anyone that questions my ability to offer these opinion has a right to, but I have the right to my opinion and the proof to back them up. I have already found another bullet manufacturer that agrees that gel does not fully represent the wounding of tissue using their round. The sooner we stop protecting tradition to prevent progress, the better we will all be.

I say this here and believe it to be true: if those that make decisions about ammunition: FBI ballistics lab , DOD, NTOA, etc, would get together and be present at a live tissue demo of multiple bullet manufacturers, including LeMas, they will see that the commentary I wrote is both accurate and the truth. Why would I risk my reputation especially when I have no vested interest other than a curiosity of challanging dogma. I challange the status quo everyday at my job and have a reputation within the Trauma surgery world of just that.

Chuck, thank you for being the questioning person you are....you are the type of man that can make his decisions based on fact and oberved truths. I offer only those, no fantasy or pretense, no bullshit, I refuse to barter in it, my professional career is based on facts, science, art and the ability the disregard the status quo. LeMas works, forget all of the previous hype.
Also, if you have the ability to influence KM;his use of pictures and words is less than professional on all accounts, I think you would agree.